It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 20
7
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Nygdan
What? No there isn't. Beleif in god is irrational, fundamentally all faith is irrational. Its not supposed to be rational (ie based on logic or evidence and the like).

The statement wasn't absurd. People give 'special consideration' to any idea as long as its a religious one. Why should they?


God provided proof, evidence and logic numerous times in the Bible. So much so it would take a multi-page outpouring for me to even begin. After all, if you believe in God, you believe logic and reason came from Him. Just because He's not showing Himself to all the peoples of the earth today (which by the way is our fault) does not mean there is no logic, proof, evidence, etc. There's just no way to share proof and evidence convincingly without faith as a tool.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by saint4God]


I would like you to give an answer even if it is multi-page, because if there was proof, there would be no skeptics. Why does proof need faith to be convincing? Proof is proof.



[edit on 24-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by nappy.
but there is TONS (YES... TONS) of evidence to base the existence of God on.


Produce it.

BUT, leave the Bible OUT of the equation, everyone is sick of hearing that scripture is proof of scripture (much as the scenario spamandham gave about Simon666 imaginary dog, he says its there and we read it here - is that admissable?). The Bible in of itself takes faith to belive. Faith is not admissable as proof in any scenario other than the Christians own.

Misfit


Let's talk about dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (This would support the "Young Earth" theory of Christians and disprove the "millions of years" theory of evolutionists.)

1. 8 different sites in the southern United States where human and dinosaur footprints are in the same rock layer and are right next to each other. These are scientifically verified.www.bible.ca...

2. ~300 Inca burial stones clearly depict humans and dinosaurs interacting. These are thousands of years old!www.omniology.com...

3. Thousands of clay and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico, include figurines of dinosaurs. They are apparently from the preclassical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.). Radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating gives them even older ages. These figurines show that the ancient people were familiar with dinosaurs.

4. Hundreds of cave paintings around the world show dinosaurs.

Don't even get me started on how radiocarbon dating and universal expansion science are totally screwed up and false. These two things are what evolutionists base their "millions of years" theories on.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

8 different sites in the southern United States where human and dinosaur footprints are in the same rock layer and are right next to each other.


That does nothing to prove anything..if I came upon a lake with a footprint of a fossil on a rock, and stepped in the mud I would leave a footprint. The lake dries, and my footprint becomes fossilized right next to the other. Millions of years later someone says, "See they coexisted together." However, the two prints are milliions of years apart in age.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

8 different sites in the southern United States where human and dinosaur footprints are in the same rock layer and are right next to each other.


That does nothing to prove anything..if I came upon a lake with a footprint of a fossil on a rock, and stepped in the mud I would leave a footprint. The lake dries, and my footprint becomes fossilized right next to the other. Millions of years later someone says, "See they coexisted together." However, the two prints are milliions of years apart in age.



They are scientifically verified to be the same age. Like I said.

Maybe you don't understand how rock geology works, but they are in the same sedimentary layer, which means they are the same age. Radiocarbon dating just further proves they are both the same age.


I would like you to give an answer even if it is multi-page, because if there was proof, there would be no skeptics. Why does proof need faith to be convincing? Proof is proof.


The sad thing is -- there is a lot of real proof, but there are still skeptics! There is a common misconception that the theory of evolution is based on science and observation and that creationism is based on assumption and faith. It is the other way around.

Evolution is based on transition yet there are no transistional life forms anywhere in the fossil record! Period.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by nappy.]

[edit on 24-6-2005 by nappy.]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Evolution is based on transition yet there are no transistional life forms anywhere in the fossil record! Period.


Try man.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.

The sad thing is -- there is a lot of real proof, but there are still skeptics! There is a common misconception that the theory of evolution is based on science and observation and that creationism is based on assumption and faith. It is the other way around.



Still no proof. How is evolution based more on faith and assumption, than creationism? Charles Darwin's theory will always change as new information is gathered and more peices of the puzzle fall into place, hence why it is a theory. Creationism will always be the same and does not change(assuming it is right, and having faith in early man's knowledge).

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

Evolution is based on transition yet there are no transistional life forms anywhere in the fossil record! Period.


Try man.



What do you mean?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by nappy.

The sad thing is -- there is a lot of real proof, but there are still skeptics! There is a common misconception that the theory of evolution is based on science and observation and that creationism is based on assumption and faith. It is the other way around.



Still no proof. How is evolution based more on faith and assumption, than creationism? Charles Darwin's theory will always change as new information is gathered and more peices of the puzzle fall into place, hence why it is a theory. Creationism will always be the same and does not change(assuming it is right, and having faith in early man's knowledge).

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]


Scientifically you can be of three main categories regarding origins (there are others, but these are the main three):

1. Creationist - the earth was created by God about 6-10,000 years ago during an expanse of 6 days.

2. Theistic Evolutionist - God started a series of self-sustaining events that began with the "Big Bang."

3. Atheistic Evolutionist- the physical universe is self sustaining and constantly compresses and explodes. The last explosion was the "Big Bang."

You can really crop it down to two: creationism and atheistic evolutionism. If you know anything about the Bible then you can gather that theistic evolution is totally contradictory with creationism.

So now if you fall into the "atheistic evolution" category YOU HAVE to assume (or have faith) that there is no God. The problem with this is that it is impossible to have no God.

The physical universe is marked by three primary attributes:

1. It is unintelligent and unconscience

2. It is finite

3. It decays and declines

The above three things are simple, undebatable science, therefore there has to be SOMETHING that is: 1)Intelligent and conscience, 2)Infinite, and 3) Not decaying or declining.

So it logically leaves creationism.

As far as physical proof is concerned: I just cited 4 examples in my third to last post. That is tangible, physical proof.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by nappy.]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by nappy.

The sad thing is -- there is a lot of real proof, but there are still skeptics! There is a common misconception that the theory of evolution is based on science and observation and that creationism is based on assumption and faith. It is the other way around.



Still no proof. How is evolution based more on faith and assumption, than creationism? Charles Darwin's theory will always change as new information is gathered and more peices of the puzzle fall into place, hence why it is a theory. Creationism will always be the same and does not change(assuming it is right, and having faith in early man's knowledge).

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]


Scientifically you can be of three main categories regarding origins (there are others, but these are the main three):

1. Creationist - the earth was created by God about 6-10,000 years ago during an expanse of 6 days.

2. Theistic Evolutionist - God started a series of self-sustaining events that began with the "Big Bang."

3. Atheistic Evolutionist- the physical universe is self sustaining and constantly compresses and explodes. The last explosion was the "Big Bang."

You can really crop it down to two: creationism and atheistic evolutionism. If you know anything about the Bible then you can gather that theistic evolution is totally contradictory with creationism.

So now if you fall into the "atheistic evolution" category YOU HAVE to assume (or have faith) that there is no God. The problem with this is that it is impossible to have no God.

The physical universe is marked by three primary attributes:

1. It is unintelligent and unconscience

2. It is finite

3. It decays and declines

The above three things are simple, undebatable science, therefore there has to be SOMETHING that is: 1)Intelligent and conscience, 2)Infinite, and 3) Not decaying or declining.

So it logically leaves creationism.

As far as physical proof is concerned: I just cited 4 examples in my third to last post. That is tangible, physical proof.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by nappy.]


Evolution does not have to be Athesitc it can be Agnostic, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism in any sense. How does proving dinosaurs existed with humans support creationism? If anything it goes against it.

You and Saint said you had proof of creationism, but I have still not gotten any. At least, evolutionists examine the Earth and the Universe and try to back up their claims with evidence.


Originally posted by nappy.
Don't even get me started on how radiocarbon dating and universal expansion science are totally screwed up and false. These two things are what evolutionists base their "millions of years" theories on.

You seem to think discrediting Evolution proves creationism.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.
Scientifically you can be of three main categories regarding origins (there are others, but these are the main three):

1. Creationist - the earth was created by God about 6-10,000 years ago during an expanse of 6 days.

2. Theistic Evolutionist - God started a series of self-sustaining events that began with the "Big Bang."

3. Atheistic Evolutionist- the physical universe is self sustaining and constantly compresses and explodes. The last explosion was the "Big Bang."


You are conveniently ignoring the creation myths of other non-Chistian religions. Which I suspect have a higher number of adherents than evolution (and has little to do with origins by the way).


Originally posted by nappy.
You can really crop it down to two: creationism and atheistic evolutionism. If you know anything about the Bible then you can gather that theistic evolution is totally contradictory with creationism.


Your bias is amazingly overt. You dismiss theistic evolution for no reason other than it contradicts the Bible. Why not simply dismiss "atheistic evolution" for the same reason and be done with all this? The answer is simple, you are attempting to deceive - yourself first and others secondarily. Eusebius would be proud.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.
1. 8 different sites in the southern United States where human and dinosaur footprints are in the same rock layer and are right next to each other. These are scientifically verified.www.bible.ca...

The Paluxy findings are not remotely scientifically verified to be from man:

unmuseum.mus.pa.us...
www.skepticreport.com...



Originally posted by nappy.
2. ~300 Inca burial stones clearly depict humans and dinosaurs interacting. These are thousands of years old!

3. Thousands of clay and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico, include figurines of dinosaurs. They are apparently from the preclassical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.). Radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating gives them even older ages. These figurines show that the ancient people were familiar with dinosaurs.

4. Hundreds of cave paintings around the world show dinosaurs.

You can also find Greek art depicting the Hydra, a Chymeara, Cerberus or other fable creatures interacting with humans that are thousands of years old, yet I doubt there ever existed a three .ed dog from hell, a dragon with ten .s or a fire-breathing she-goat with the . of a lion, the body of a goat and a serpent's tail. It is only with some imagination that you could think of the creatures depicted as dinosaurs.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Evolution does not have to be Athesitc it can be Agnostic, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism in any sense. How does proving dinosaurs existed with humans support creationism? If anything it goes against it.


Did I say evolution had to be atheistic? I said that evolution can be theistic OR atheistic. Theistic evolution can mean anyone who believes a 'higher-power' started the physical universe. This could include agnostics too.

Proving dinosaurs and humans existed together supports the 'Young Earth' theory, which is what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches that humans and dinosaurs were separated by some 60-65 MILLION years. My evidence shows that dinos and humans coexisted... thus supporting creationism.


You and Saint said you had proof of creationism, but I have still not gotten any. At least, evolutionists examine the Earth and the Universe and try to back up their claims with evidence.


You keep saying that we haven't shown proof OVER AND OVER again, but I keep repeating what I've said before! I've shown evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting (and a lot of it) and that supports the Bible and the God I worship.

There is other evidence too that we can get into. The coexistence of dinosaurs and humans is just one example.

So how about your 'evidence' for evolution? What have your scientists 'observed'? They haven't observed one species become another, which is what biological evolution is based on, that's for sure. Where are all the transistional fossils that have to exist to support evolution? THERE ARE NONE! Spamandham has pointed out that there are self-replicating amino acid chains, but they still remain AMINO ACID CHAINS! They don't become anything 'higher.' Lots and lots of chemicals replicate -- we already knew that.


You seem to think discrediting Evolution proves creationism.


That's exactly why I have also cited evidence to SUPPORT creationism rather than only evidence to discredit evolution.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

The Paluxy findings are not remotely scientifically verified to be from man


Yes, but check out some of the others! For instance look at the New Mexico tracks! THOSE ARE CLEARLY HUMAN AND ARE IN PRE-CAMBRIAN ROCK!!



You can also find Greek art depicting the Hydra, a Chymeara, Cerberus or other fable creatures interacting with humans that are thousands of years old, yet I doubt there ever existed a three .ed dog from hell, a dragon with ten .s or a fire-breathing she-goat with the . of a lion, the body of a goat and a serpent's tail. It is only with some imagination that you could think of the creatures depicted as dinosaurs.


That isn't my point! The fact that the Incas and early civilizations knew what the specific species looked like is what I'm pointing out. They drew FLESH-AND-BLOOD ceratopsians, sauropods, stegosaurs, and theropods! It doesn't make a difference if the Greek can draw a three-.ed dog, so can I! The point is that we know ceratopsians, sauropods, stegosaurs, and theropods existed and the ancient people knew what they looked like alive!



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by nappy.
Scientifically you can be of three main categories regarding origins (there are others, but these are the main three):

1. Creationist - the earth was created by God about 6-10,000 years ago during an expanse of 6 days.

2. Theistic Evolutionist - God started a series of self-sustaining events that began with the "Big Bang."

3. Atheistic Evolutionist- the physical universe is self sustaining and constantly compresses and explodes. The last explosion was the "Big Bang."


You are conveniently ignoring the creation myths of other non-Chistian religions. Which I suspect have a higher number of adherents than evolution (and has little to do with origins by the way).


That is why in my first sentence I wrote "there are others."



Originally posted by nappy.
You can really crop it down to two: creationism and atheistic evolutionism. If you know anything about the Bible then you can gather that theistic evolution is totally contradictory with creationism.


Your bias is amazingly overt. You dismiss theistic evolution for no reason other than it contradicts the Bible. Why not simply dismiss "atheistic evolution" for the same reason and be done with all this? The answer is simple, you are attempting to deceive - yourself first and others secondarily. Eusebius would be proud.


Ahh... I see... my bias is overt, but your isn't...

How have I 'deceived'? Perhaps you have deceived because you have ignored or ridiculed much of what I've said even though I make good, simple, and logical arguments.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by nappy.]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.

Did I say evolution had to be atheistic? I said that evolution can be theistic OR atheistic. Theistic evolution can mean anyone who believes a 'higher-power' started the physical universe. This could include agnostics too.

Proving dinosaurs and humans existed together supports the 'Young Earth' theory, which is what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches that humans and dinosaurs were separated by some 60-65 MILLION years. My evidence shows that dinos and humans coexisted... thus supporting creationism.

So were there Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did they serve Adam and Eve? Did Noah take 2 of every dinosaurs onto his Arc?


You keep saying that we haven't shown proof OVER AND OVER again, but I keep repeating what I've said before! I've shown evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting (and a lot of it) and that supports the Bible and the God I worship.


Even if some dinosaurs are proven to be less the 6k years old that doesn't change that some dinosaur fossils are over millions of years old. Proving some dinosaurs did not go extinct as evolution states does not change the age of Earth, which is about 4.55 billion years old.



So how about your 'evidence' for evolution? What have your scientists 'observed'? They haven't observed one species become another, which is what biological evolution is based on, that's for sure. Where are all the transistional fossils that have to exist to support evolution? THERE ARE NONE! Spamandham has pointed out that there are self-replicating amino acid chains, but they still remain AMINO ACID CHAINS! They don't become anything 'higher.' Lots and lots of chemicals replicate -- we already knew that.


There are transitional fossils such as the Archaeopteryx
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

And new bird fossils that support some dinosaurs evolved into Birds.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Evolution has been observed and here are some reasons people believe:
www.talkorigins.org...

You must realize the what I expect as proof, and I didn't claim to have proof only a theory.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by nappy.

Did I say evolution had to be atheistic? I said that evolution can be theistic OR atheistic. Theistic evolution can mean anyone who believes a 'higher-power' started the physical universe. This could include agnostics too.

Proving dinosaurs and humans existed together supports the 'Young Earth' theory, which is what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches that humans and dinosaurs were separated by some 60-65 MILLION years. My evidence shows that dinos and humans coexisted... thus supporting creationism.

So were there Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did they serve Adam and Eve? Did Noah take 2 of every dinosaurs onto his Arc?


Were the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

Maybe, maybe-not. It doesn't matter.

What purpose did they serve Adam and Eve?

Sauropods and ceratopsians would make great beasts of burden.


Did Noah take two of every dinosaur?

It is possible. It has already been calculated several times that the ark could easily fit all the animals and have plenty of room for food and provisions (believe it or not). It is possible the dinos already died out because of the collapse of the ice shield, which I discussed in detail in the "Harder to believe in - God or Aliens" thread.

By the way, some satelite imagery has depicted a large object that appears to be -- and could very well be -- the ark on top of Mount Ararat.



You keep saying that we haven't shown proof OVER AND OVER again, but I keep repeating what I've said before! I've shown evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting (and a lot of it) and that supports the Bible and the God I worship.


Even if some dinosaurs are proven to be less the 6k years old that doesn't change that some dinosaur fossils are over millions of years old. Proving some dinosaurs did not go extinct as evolution states does not change the age of Earth, which is about 4.55 billion years old.


I haven't shown that humans may have coexisted with "some" dinosaurs, but that dinosaurs, in general, were just part of everyday ancient life. Ancient people didn't just know what one, or two, or three species of dinos were -- they knew what dozens upon dozens of species were! Several different kinds of ceratopsians (triceratops is just one example), dozens of different sauropods, dozens of different theropods, and stegosaurs... and the list goes on! The 65 million year gap between dinos and humans is non-existent.

Actually the two dates you mentioned were probably reached by using radiocarbon dating, which has been shown to be totally screwed up dating past ~10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating is also based on two assumptions that are totally unknowable. To see about a dozen different articles on the inaccuracy and lie that is prehistory-radiocarbon dating I recommend going to this link:

www.answersingenesis.org...




So how about your 'evidence' for evolution? What have your scientists 'observed'? They haven't observed one species become another, which is what biological evolution is based on, that's for sure. Where are all the transistional fossils that have to exist to support evolution? THERE ARE NONE! Spamandham has pointed out that there are self-replicating amino acid chains, but they still remain AMINO ACID CHAINS! They don't become anything 'higher.' Lots and lots of chemicals replicate -- we already knew that.


There are transitional fossils such as the Archaeopteryx
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

And new bird fossils that support some dinosaurs evolved into Birds.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Evolution has been observed and here are some reasons people believe:
www.talkorigins.org...

You must realize the what I expect as proof, and I didn't claim to have proof only a theory.


If archaeopteryx was a transitional form it would have to be before most birds, but there is absolutely no evidence that it was. Many still say that archaeopteryx was fully a dinosaur. Is the flying squirrel half-way between mammal and bird? NO. There is nothing to back up the claim that archaeopteryx is transitioning from dino to bird. What about bats? Are they somewhere between bird and mammal? NO. Even many paleontologists can't say whether archaeopteryx is a transition - it very well may be a dinosaur.

Do you understand how many individual species it would take to transition from the initial micro-organism to all the varieties we have today? The number is astronomical and physically impossible. There is no evidence of any of these transitioning.

Many scientists have argued that amphibians are the 'transition' between fish and reptiles, but this theory has recently gone under intense scrutiny and MAJOR contradictions -- looks like evolutionists are back to square-1 on transition.

This argument is a big misconception: "The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. "

The change "consistent with common descent" has never been effectively shown or demonstrated and the "ancestral tree" evolutionists always point to doesn't show any transition. Speaking of sudden creation... the precambrian explosion is a perfect example.

If evolution were true than it would be virtually impossible for any species to remain unchanged over a few million years -- let alone hundreds of millions of years, yet there are many fossilized cock-roaches and other insects that are just like the ones today!

Have you ever heard of the coelacanth?

The coelacanth was a fish that evolutionary theory had placed 70 million years ago, but in 1938 some fishermen caught one and it appeared unchanged even over 70 million years!!


[edit on 26-6-2005 by nappy.]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nappy.
Yes, but check out some of the others! For instance look at the New Mexico tracks! THOSE ARE CLEARLY HUMAN AND ARE IN PRE-CAMBRIAN ROCK!!

Problem is, only bible sites seem to be aware of their existence.




Originally posted by nappy.
That isn't my point! The fact that the Incas and early civilizations knew what the specific species looked like is what I'm pointing out. They drew FLESH-AND-BLOOD ceratopsians, sauropods, stegosaurs, and theropods!

Not Incas and ancient civilizations, but farmers who knew what dinosaurs looked like from among others comic books:


skepdic.com...

and:

interview with a Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, two peasants from Callango, published some years ago by Mundial magazine (Anonymous 1975). In it, Basilio and Irma admit that all of the stones they sold to Cabrera they had carved themselves. As for the subjects to be depicted on the stones it was easy: they chose illustrations from comic books, school books, and magazines. ...Finally, a recent examination of the stones, done in Barcellona by José Antonio Lamich, founder of the Spanish "Hipergea" research group, revealed signs of sandpaper and recent carvings, ... When questioned why they did it, the hoaxers answered that etching stones was easier than tilling the soil." -CSICOP



Originally posted by nappy.
By the way, some satelite imagery has depicted a large object that appears to be -- and could very well be -- the ark on top of Mount Ararat.

That's a misinterpretation of a perfectly normal rock formation. Noone ever found anything there.



Originally posted by nappy.
Actually the two dates you mentioned were probably reached by using radiocarbon dating, which has been shown to be totally screwed up dating past ~10,000 years.

So? Evolutionists never claim radiocarbon dating works past around 10000 years. Carbon-14 isn't however the only radioactive isotope on this planet and there are hence several other dating methods making use of radioactive decay using isotopes that have a significantly longer halflife than that of carbon-14.



Originally posted by nappy.
If evolution were true than it would be virtually impossible for any species to remain unchanged over a few million years -- let alone hundreds of millions of years, yet there are many fossilized -roaches and other insects that are just like the ones today! Have you ever heard of the coelacanth? The coelacanth was a fish that evolutionary theory had placed 70 million years ago, but in 1938 some fishermen caught one and it appeared unchanged even over 70 million years!!

You might as well have mentioned crocodiles which have also remained virtually unchanged for some several million years. That this is somehow contradictory with evolution theory is based on erroneous assumptions on what evolution theory exactly says. Evolution does not exclude at all that species remain virtually the same for millions of years, if they are successful in their environment.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

quote: Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
quote: Evolution is based on transition yet there are no transistional life forms anywhere in the fossil record! Period.

Try man.



What do you mean?


You seem to ignore the obvious. If one believes in the 7tribes of Israel or 12 tribes or whatever that spread across this world then one must surely realize evolution exists.

Whay are Africans black? Why are Oriental's the way they are? Why are members of middle east descent the way they are? Why is the white man white? If the "tribes" spread out across the globe than isn't it obvious that each adopted to the climate they were in with pigmentation change, etc?

Man has also continually grown taller, and carried more weight. Just in my lifetime I have seen more and more height. This is evolution friend. A continual change based on environmental conditions. Soon if man is lucky we will adopt to breathing in carbon dioxide, and spitting out oxygen!!



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Man has also continually grown taller, and carried more weight. Just in my lifetime I have seen more and more height. This is evolution friend. A continual change based on environmental conditions. Soon if man is lucky we will adopt to breathing in carbon dioxide, and spitting out oxygen!!

The present growing taller is not remotely associated with evolution but is instead caused by changed nutrition. Evolution is a process of several tens of generations, which for man implies several thousand years. Also, don't remotely count on higher organisms breathing carbon dioxide, as carbon dioxide is not strong neither as an oxidant nor as a reductant. This means that as fuel or as oxidant of a chemical motor in cells, it can provide very little energy.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
yeah if evolution is true, then we should be getting taller and better and faster, and smarter. but the exact opposite it true. a few years after they introduced evolution into public school, they had to dumb down the SAT test to make the students look smart. every since evolution was brought into schools, violent crimes skyrocketed. abortion rates went up, teen pregnancy rates went up. murder rates went up.

evolution was introduced into americas public schools, all becuase russia beat us in the space race. and thats what they were teaching.

anyways back to what I was saying about evolution not being true. humans back in the day were smarter than we are today. its obvious they didnt have the technology to do somethings, but they used what they had. they found analog computing systems that the greeks used to map out the stars and planets, and the moon. are you telling me that people are getting smarter? people figured out that there were other planets a while ago.

Egyptians knew how to operate on human bodies, they knew how to reshape the skull, they knew how to do brain surgery. they were pretty damn smart.

Egyptians drew dragons (today called dinosaurs)on their pottery. now every artist I know of. either draws an abstract image, or they draw something they see. they have drawings of dragons with circular patterns on there skin. and not too long ago, fossilized skin was found that had circular patterns on it. I think the egyptians saw dragons in their days. if you find a human foot print inside a dragon footprint in limestone. what should you conclude? that a dragon stepped their first and then the human stepped their? I would assume that.
but that can only happen if they co-existed.
you can draw something only if you knew what it looked like.
human bones were found and there were measured out to make the human over 10 foot

the bible is right
www.stevequayle.com...
www.genesispark.com...
www.allaboutcreation.org...
www.kent-hovind.com...
www.bibleufo.com...

www.pathlights.com...

you cant tell me that not one of these is true. only an evolutionists who really cant let his theory go, would be "willingly ignorant" meaning dumb on purpose just a II timothy said. only one who walks after their own lusts just as II timothy said.

See its quite obvious that God created the universe and didnt have to lift a finger. and people who believe in the Gap theory, are full of crap. the days are not long periods of time. because if you look at the order in which God created things, certain things wouldnt survive without the others if the days were longs periods of time. if all of it was created in six days, then there is no problem.

since God created the world, he can destroy it. here are somelinks that show flood legends. the most common differences is the names mentioned in the legends.
www.nwcreation.net...
members.aol.com...
www.creationscience.com...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

there was a flood. no doubt.

See I know that some people dont like Dr Hovind. but he give some good evidence that totally throws that evolution theory out the window. now yeah you can say that creation might not be true, but you cant prove that. all you can argue is that evolution is science and its not. that is the evolutionist plead. "oh but its science, are you saying that science is wrong?" no science is science and evolution is a religion because it requires faith to believe that humans ultimately evolved from a rock.

there is no proof and there will never be any proof. and SIMON666, you cant prove it. so stop saying that you have proof, cuz you dont.

ha I am so right



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join