The Absolute Power of Christianity!

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.

I dont know who posted this, but it does not go against the bible. the bible said that God created everything in six says.... dinosaurs would be a part of everything. and humans would be a part of everything. so if they were all created within the same six days, they co-existed. it does not go against the creation theory. it actually supports it


haha right again

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.

I dont know who posted this, but it does not go against the bible. the bible said that God created everything in six says.... dinosaurs would be a part of everything. and humans would be a part of everything. so if they were all created within the same six days, they co-existed. it does not go against the creation theory. it actually supports it


haha right again

Originally posted by nappyhead

What purpose did they serve Adam and Eve?

Sauropods and ceratopsians would make great beasts of burden.

Actually every animal in the Garden was supposed to serve Adam and Eve, but if all dinosaurs were there (not just one or two, oh the irony) as you just stated, then they would be carnivores who would have ate Adam and Eve.

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.

First I'll state the obvious, the animals(and dinos) aren't just going
A) Walk on the arc in single file
B) Not immediatley kill each other

And even if they weren't on the arc, how did all the other species breed with only two of each? Wouldn't they all be imbreeds?

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.

I never said the Arc didn't exist.

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...

What a suprise, another religious site.

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!

That's not how evolution works. If the enviroment changes, then the animals must adapt to it. If a trait of the animal is better for survival, then all of the species without it will die out. If the enviroment is not changing then neither are the speices.

The reason a cockroach is unchanged is because they don't need to change, they could survive almost anything including the aftermath of a nuclear bomb, while all humans would die out.

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!!

This just supports my suggetion, that maybe some dinosaurs didn't die out.

I didn't want to discuss the validity of evolution because I know it's not perfect, but Expert999 you must be like 10 years old with all your" hahah so I am right". Statements like:" the bible is right "are pointless.

Evolution is right. See just becuase I said it doesn't make it true.


[edit on 26-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

evolution works by natural selection, or survival of the fitest. but the way evolutionists say its supposed to work, is that once one species evolves better than the rest, everything else must die in order for the new species to live and take over the population.

but it doesnt work that way. Hitler tried speeding up the process of natural selection, he thought he was getting rid of the inferior race.
he was wrong. black people have more of the athletic part of the gene pool.

evolution does not happen and it never has. the earth (according to the bible) is roughly 6,000 years old but definately younger than 10,000 years old.

Originally posted by expert999
but it doesnt work that way. Hitler tried speeding up the process of natural selection, he thought he was getting rid of the inferior race.
he was wrong. black people have more of the athletic part of the gene pool.

evolution does not happen and it never has. the earth (according to the bible) is roughly 6,000 years old but definately younger than 10,000 years old.

Wow. Not only do you not know what in god's name you're talking about, but you're racist as well.

I'm so glad we changed the new member process to avoid this sort of thing. . . oh wait. . .

im not racist...and if I was, how so? by the statement I said about black people is a fact. if you dont like the term get over it.

my bad charlie murphy, I didnt mean to sound like a kid. for real, my bad.

anyways.

id rathere believe that all the animals came from two of each animal from noahs ark rather than it coming from a rock, which one makes more sense? I think the bible does. noahs ark had one of each kind of animal. not species, just the kind. and noah didnt have to bring the biggest ones he could find, all he had to do was get a pink one and a blue one. so they can repopulate.

again evolution is not true. first off, scientific laws go against it, and most parts if not all parts have been proven wrong. some were fakes, and some were just made up. and some parts just dont make sense.

real science supports the bible. do your homework and see fore yourself.

Originally posted by expert999
my bad charlie murphy, I didnt mean to sound like a kid. for real, my bad.

id rathere believe that all the animals came from two of each animal from noahs ark rather than it coming from a rock, which one makes more sense? I think the bible does. noahs ark had one of each kind of animal. not species, just the kind. and noah didnt have to bring the biggest ones he could find, all he had to do was get a pink one and a blue one. so they can repopulate.

Don't worry about it, but you can see where I'm comin from.

Evolution does not try to explain where life original came from, only how it evolved. Im not sure what a "kind" is but 2 of anything can't repopulate.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

well according to the bible, a "kind" is what can bring forth offspring. I horse and a zebra can bring forth, because they are the same kind of animal. different species, but same kind.
a dog and a wolf can bring forth, but a dog and a horse canot bring forth because they are not the same kind.

Dr Hovind points this out in his seminars.

now Charles Darwin thinks that every living organism on planet earth are somehow related, which is not true. yes all animals have life. humans have life, but according to the bible humans and animals are the only things that have life.

ill show you... let me pull up a few quotes...

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

one this day he made plants, notice that the word life is not mentioned. this was all done on the third day

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

life is mentioned here. this shows that animals have life and plantes do not. according to the bible. if plants were alive you would be eating something that died of itself. and according to the bible thats wrong to eat something that dies of itself.

but sinces plants are not alive in the biblical sense, death did not happen until man sinned. there is the proof from the bible that mans sin caused death. if case anyone asks.

ok here is something else to help the creation theory and scientific evidence we find today...




Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.


Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

if there was a canopy of water is any form, it would block all forms of radiation causing people to look young all their life. because we all know that we are getting xrayed 24/7/365. and it is going to eventually make our skin look bad.
second. it would compress the air in the atmosphere, to about double the airpressure making breathing easier and if there was actually a greater percentage of oxygen in the air around 30 % or maybe higher, that would explain how dinosaurs came to be. * you will never find the word dinosaur in the bible, the word wasnt made up until the 1800s. they were called dragons. anyways.
reptiles never stop growing, and if you let on live in an atmosphere that has double airpressure and a higher percentage of oxygen its going to grow to be huge, so will humans along with that, humans stop goring after a while but they would still grow to be bigger. everything would grow bigger.

if this canopy fell down during the flood, it would explain why the life span of people after the flood was shortened, there is no protection from the suns rays, and there isnt enough air.

I didnt mention this earlier. more oxygen helps the brain function so people back then were smarter, or rather knew how to use more of their brain. im sure adam could use 100% of his brain. I mean he would walk, talk, name all the animals and get married in one day.

but I do have to argue that Evolutionists do not have any explanation for the origin of life. or the origin of the universe. all they say is that it must of happened.

I mean at least I have a bible to show me how it happened, and fossils today showing that there were giants in the earth in those day... quote Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

this is why we find dinosaurs from the past and not today. there are dinosaurs today, there is one in africa called mokele-mbembe. here is a link

cryptozoo.monstrous.com...

the bible provides a better explanation to what we see today. all the fossils we find and all the layers of strata and coal seams and all the oil, are all the aftermath of product of the flood.
know I dont know about you, but I do not know how a tree is going to stand there for millions of years for a layer to form around it. trees are found connecting layers of strata. now what really gets me, is trees do not stand upsidedown waiting for layers to build up around them. unsidedown and petrified. thats impossible if evoution is true. the whole earth would have to flood in order to find them all over the world.

thats just more proof against evolution
but evolution has to happen, there isnt a better theory out there to replace evolution,
well there is the creation theory but no one wants to accountable to the creator.

Originally posted by expert999
im not racist...and if I was, how so? by the statement I said about black people is a fact. if you dont like the term get over it.

I have no problem with your terminology I have a problem with your statement that blacks have more "athletic genes" than whites.

That is a lie.

www.calresco.org...

The jig is up. Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races.

www.post-gazette.com...

And even among humans, genetic variations obviously exist between individuals. Some genes are expressed, or "turned on," in some people and not in others. Some genes tend to develop mutations, which may alter body functioning or physical appearance, and these mutations get passed on to offspring.

But these variations don't occur neatly along racial lines. Scientists calculate that there is an average genetic variation of 5 percent between racial groups. But that leaves a whopping 95 percent of variation that occurs within racial groups.

ok maybe I can rephrase. and use an anology or something to get you to understand something

there are both black and white basketball players, that is a fact.

but it is said that white men cant jump. for some that is true, for others it is not.

if you get two men, one white and one black, same height and around the same weight.

if you give equal time for training on an all natural diet. im sure that the black person would end up being the better athlete.

it was a black person who one the most gold metals in the olympics in 1936. jessie owens was his name I believe. and hitler said "its not fair to make my men compete against this animal" see hitler thought that black people are pretty close to being ape. I think otherwise. some black people are way smarter than some white people. some black people do many good things. the same about all other colors.

my view on races. there is not races, we all are of one blood, and that is of humans blood. its called the humans race, so if you think that I am racist, you better find out who my friends are first and then tell im what I am.

I am not racist, I just point out physical things about different people. and it comes from within the gene code.

Expert, I can see that you have no interest on this board beyond evangelistically spreading your racist flavour of Christianity. I think you may be on the wrong board to spread that kind of disgusting filth.

Zip

Expert999, I could quote Origin of Species all I want, but the fact remains it's just a book just as the Bible is.

Your views on Evolution, and how high black men can jump are just opinions. You provide no links to back up your claims and I have no clue as to what you are talking about, and your proof is just you rambling.

Charlie, you will no doubt find Expert999's own thread here fascinating.

Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

Zip

well actually. if you do your own research, you will find that certain species can bring forth and certain others cannot. and the point I was trying to get across was that you can observe that only certain animals can bring forth and the bible agrees with that. the proves that the bible is right about something.

I should have to show you my research, how about you go find out if I have been falsely informed.

Heh. How about "no."

Back up your claims with sources.

In the threads that you feature yourself prominently in, when you step in, the flow of the thread changes, as:

1. You make a wild, unsupported claim.
2. You ask the board to show that your claim is misguided.
3. When that happens, you ignore whatever evidence-laden posts you are confronted with, attempt to sidetrack the other party, then go on with your next wild, unsupported claim.

The pattern is all too obvious, and in these threads, it is clear that the participants are becoming somewhat irritated.

I want to talk to you, you seem like you have a lot to say, but we cannot continue this unless you start googling your claims and backing yourself up.

You are presenting your opinions as facts, or arguments, and that's dandy as long as you make everyone aware that you are just pulling things out of the air. If your claims can be corroborated, then why not take the two seconds to do it?

Zip

[edit on 6/27/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by expert999
yeah if evolution is true, then we should be getting taller and better and faster, and smarter.

Wrong, evolution does NOT say the tallest, best and smartest survive, only that the fittest survive. There are plenty of cases for example where smaller creatures are better suited, more fit, for their environment as those require less food, examples of this shrinking are the dwarf mammoths in Siberia and in case of human evolution, more recently the Flores man is a perfect example of that. Some speculate that we are in fact the dominating form of man instead of the more muscular - needs more proteins and food to keep those - Neanderthal. Considering getting smarter: that is also not always beneficial in evolution as a larger brain requires more energy. The human brain is only 2% of the weight of the body, but it consumes about 20% of the total energy in the body at rest. This points out that getting "better" from an evolutionary point of view, is not always what we people consider to be better.

Originally posted by expert999
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.

People are smarter, taller and live longer than previously, not due to evolution, but due to changes in nutrition, society and technological level.

Originally posted by expert999
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.

They knew how to do some very basic operations, but you'd have to be damn lucky to survive them as they had never even heard of sterilisation.

Originally posted by expert999
ha I am so right

You're an arrogant brainwashed religious fundamentalist, of the same kind that used to put scientists on the stake in ancient times.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I have no problem with your terminology I have a problem with your statement that blacks have more "athletic genes" than whites. That is a lie.

The links you provide do not support your claim, which seems motivated either by a desire to be overly politically correct or because you feel it relates to you personally. It does say that the average genetic variation between "racial groups" is around 5 percent, and that within the racial groups is 95 percent. This does justify saying that the term "race" to describe the difference between "whites", "blacks", "asians" etcetera is incorrect. It however does NOT justify saying there is no genetic variation between these groups AT ALL. Although such a genetic advantage is to my knowledge still not scientifically proven, it seems very reasonable to me as well as a lot of scientists that people in certain regions of Africa have on average a genetic advantage for certain sports. It is no coincidence if you ask me that for long runs like the marathon, the winners are often Ethiopian or Moroccan and in sprinting, you see people from other regions of Africa and almost no "white" or "asian" people. I do not feel saying this is racist in nature.

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.

In our present form you mean.

Do trees provide very little energy?

Do trees provide very little energy?

Organism breathing carbon dioxide essentially get the energy for their cellular processes from the sun, this makes them equivalent to photovoltaic cells and ones with a very low efficiency of conversion of light into energy. Organisms breathing oxygen get their energy from chemical oxidation, which makes them equivalent with fuel cells. If humans were to breathe carbon dioxide only, they would need to get energy from the sun and could only get as much energy as there falls sunlight on our skin. There is a reason for it you know that no single higher organism breathes carbon dioxide. Trees grow very slow by the way.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Simon666]