Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You seem to be completely ignoring my comments about Moses being trained in the Egyptian mystery schools as part of the Pharoah's family. Or about him learning about sacred geometry and the Flower of Life. Or about how the flower of life relates to the biblical story of creation in the first book of Genesis but also to many, many other cultures stories of creation as well. So yes, Genesis is right, but so are many other creation stories. Moses learned it from the Egyptians, the Egyptians learned it from their one of their gods, Thoth, who possibly was someone from the civilization of Atlantis, an advanced culture when Egypt was in it's infancy (or possibly ET) Just because Genesis is right does not prove anything beyond that whoever wrote it had an advanced knowledge of sacred geometrical principles, which was, of course, taught in the Egyptian mystery schools. I'd love you to comment on that or answer my question about how growing up as a part of Pharoah's family and all that entails makes him a simple "goat herder"




posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





No I'm not agreeing Moses got it right because we are not even sure if the big bang is right. All I said was that starting from nothing is the way many story tellers would start their story. And many have. It's called "creatio ex nihilo".



So you're not sayin' that because "we are not even sure if the big bang is right" - that the universe had no beginning? Correct? So you're disagreement then is with those who came out with the theory - like Dr Carl Sagan, Prof. Jastrow, et al. Am I correct?

But since we know that universe had a beginning then Moses statement at Gen 1:1 is correct, right? Why the disagreement then?

Unless you're saying that the universe have no beginning - if so then where are you basing it?




There are more than a few creation myths that have the start from nothing part at the beginning. If that is all it takes to be true then there are many truths and as coyotepoet pointed out you don't really have the truth market cornered.


like what I said already - myths is just a myths if it's not supported by facts, on this ground the Bible is not as evidenced by the FACTS presented.

So can you please name a myths that is supported by facts?

Note some of the myths that mentioned in the OP:

"The Egyptians believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea."

They are not supported by facts but the Bible is.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





"The Egyptians believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea." They are not supported by facts but the Bible is.


The difference is that most people have the good sense to read the other cultures myths as the metaphors of deeper spiritual truths that they are. Most people who read the Bible take it (and other metaphoric myths apparently) as stone cold non-metaphorical truth rather than the symbolic metaphor they are all intended to be.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Interesting but, Moses turned his back on Egypt and his royal life.

Hebrew 11: 24-28


Aroused by faith Moses, when he had grown to maturity and become great, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,
25Because he preferred to share the oppression [suffer the hardships] and bear the shame of the people of God rather than to have the fleeting enjoyment of a sinful life.
26He considered the contempt and abuse and shame [borne for] the Christ (the Messiah Who was to come) to be greater wealth than all the treasures of Egypt, for he looked forward and away to the reward (recompense).
27[Motivated] by faith he left Egypt behind him, being unawed and undismayed by the wrath of the king; for he never flinched but held staunchly to his purpose and endured steadfastly as one who gazed on Him Who is invisible.
28By faith (simple trust and confidence in God) he instituted and carried out the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood [on the doorposts], so that the destroyer of the firstborn (the angel) might not touch those [of the children of Israel].



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



Religion is man made! The Bible is The Only Holy Book- 100% God / Elohim = Creator Inspired!!!

www.theomatics.com...

The entire word structure of the Bible, was designed by God in a unique way so that theomatics could work. In otherwords, God specifically structured the grammar of the Hebrew and Greek languages so that all of the number patterns could fit and flow together. An amazing degree of thought went into it. Theomatics will answer many puzzling questions as to the why's of these two languages and their grammatical structure.


God controls man's knowledge of the divine and supernatural, by either giving or witholding inspiration. We can know nothing about God, unless He steps through the veil and chooses to reveal Himself. If God does not give a person the gift of faith, they will remain blind ~ this subject will hold no interest to them. So the bottom line to all this is not academic excellence by impressing all the statisticians and theologians in major universities. Those types of individuals are generally not interested in having the Bible proven to them.


The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else. No other work of literature ever written, never has, and probably never will, be able to consistenly demonstrate anything like theomatics. We have no reason to belive that anything like this could exist in any work of literature any more than one would expect to find provable patterns in the Chicago phone book. If you take any other work of literature and categorize phrases according to meanings, or word usages, etc., and look for various multiple factors within all the numerical totals for various phrase combinations, you will find nothing in the numbers but chance expectation (the null hypothesis). Apparently the only place where this phenomenon appears, is in the 66 books of the Bible.

The phenomenon only works with the standard numerical allocations for the alphabets. When any of the other 403 septillion random permutations are examined, even from the Bible, nothing will be discovered beyond chance expectation. Only the standard numerical values of historical record produce any positive results.

Finally, AND THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT! The phenomenon only works in the Bible when words and phrases with related or similar theological meaning are examined. If one were to take words and phrases selected at random from the Bible text, even with the correct numerical allocations, there would still be no results beyond chance expectation. This proves that the language itself is not producing the phenomenon. The only phrases that can produce statistically significant results are those using a common Hebrew or Greek word, or there is an unmistakable and common and obvious theological relationship between the words and phrases, i.e. all the references to the birth of Christ, or all the references to Satan, or all the references to Jehovah the Rock, etc.

So theomatics only works when all three of the above conditions line up. This proves that only intelligence can be the explanation. Somebody with intelligence had to have arranged all of this. Therefore, all natural and alternative explanations (and excuses) are securely tucked into bed.



John 1
1IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ( Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

2He was present originally with God.

3All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

4In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.

5And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it].


The Logos is the eternal Word in action. But it is no irrational action or sheer expression of feeling. It is the divine Actor, acting in creation and redemption in a coherent way, who is announced in John's Gospel.

That the Word became flesh and dwelt among us is the startling conclusion of John's prologue. The cosmic Christ enters our humanity. It is the supreme moment of visitation of the eternal with the temporal, the infinite with the finite, the unconditioned with the conditioned.

Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others. That may sound terribly dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is a Personal Relationship With The Creator.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Faith2011 because: add link



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Interesting but, Moses turned his back on Egypt and his royal life.


Maybe so but that doesn't mean that he unlearned or forgot everything he was taught by way of the mystery schools. Just that he chose to move forward in life as a Jew. The knowledge he gained in his youth most certainly contributed to his understanding of deeper Truths on which he based the rest of his life.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm disagreeing with anyone stating that the big bang is a fact when it has not been proven. Be it Sagan, Moses or you.

If the fact supporting your myth is the beginning of the universe then any other myth which also begins in this way is also supported by that and therefor just as true. Sure you can try to say we have the beginning and also something that can be interpreted as gravity or dark matter and they don't but that doesn't mean it takes the validity of "what they got right" as you like to say.

edit on 8-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You seem to be completely ignoring my comments about Moses being trained in the Egyptian mystery schools as part of the Pharoah's family. Or about him learning about sacred geometry and the Flower of Life. Or about how the flower of life relates to the biblical story of creation in the first book of Genesis but also to many, many other cultures stories of creation as well. So yes, Genesis is right, but so are many other creation stories. Moses learned it from the Egyptians, the Egyptians learned it from their one of their gods, Thoth, who possibly was someone from the civilization of Atlantis, an advanced culture when Egypt was in it's infancy (or possibly ET) Just because Genesis is right does not prove anything beyond that whoever wrote it had an advanced knowledge of sacred geometrical principles, which was, of course, taught in the Egyptian mystery schools. I'd love you to comment on that or answer my question about how growing up as a part of Pharoah's family and all that entails makes him a simple "goat herder"


Patience my friend - I'm replying to one of the post -

Anyway as for Moses being a "goat herder" - I picked it up here on ATS. Most non-believers somehow have this bad effect whenever you mention the Bible writer like Moses - they reply back with a goat herder statement. But of course Moses was once a mighty Prince in Egypt but gave it for the sake of his people. Matter of fact, I'm sure many have seen the Cecile D Demille epic movie The Ten Commandments.

As for his writings - are you saying that he got them, learned them in Egypt? Is this including the Ten Commandments?

What about the other 600 commandments and the rest of his writings?

As for the "flower of life" related to creation - i dunno, most people here ask for scientific evidence to back up a statement so my apology I'm not into myths or mystery schools.

ty,
edmc2

btw - if i even use this "flower of life" analogy with an atheist or an evolutionists - any idea how they will react?

ty,
edmc2


edit on 8-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: c



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm disagreeing with anyone stating that the big bang is a fact when it has not been proven. Be it Sagan, Moses or you.

If the fact suporting your myth is the beginning of the universe then any other myth which also begins in this way is also supported by that and therefor just as true. Sure you can try to say we have the beginning and also something that can be interpreted as gravity or dark matter and they don't but that doesn't mean it takes the validity of "what they got right" as you like to say.



OK - so let's get something clear then - I believe that the Universe had a beginning and it's a fact. Do you agree with this scientific fact?

Whether it's defined as big bang boom or something else - do you agree that the universe had a beginning?

ty,
e



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


So you are taking the unique numerological qualities of Hebrew (which was well known prior to Christianity and was also used by Alistair Crowley in his magickal workings) and connecting it to Christianity to say that Christianity is the one true religion? You do realize that the Old Testament has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity beyond being co-opted as part of the Bible right? That culturally and historically Christianity started well after the Pentateuch around...the time of Christ. David Allen Hulse wrote a great set of books called "The Eastern Mysteries" and "The Western Mysteries". The chapter on Hebrew is in the Eastern Mysteries and is the biggest chapter. The numerological qualities of Hebrew have more to do with Kaballah than they do Christianity. As for the Greek, they were well aware of numerology and gematria (geometry-same root) too.

edit on 8-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK - so let's get something clear then - I believe that the Universe had a beginning and it's a fact. Do you agree with this scientific fact?


No because it has not been proven. It is only a theory.

Where I may have muddled things up is where I pointed out that even if the theory turned out to be true the bible is not the only creation story with that kind of beginning so it's a questionable way of establishing proof.
edit on 8-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK - so let's get something clear then - I believe that the Universe had a beginning and it's a fact. Do you agree with this scientific fact?


No because it has not been proven. It is only a theory.

Where I may have muddled things up is where I pointed out that even if the theory turned out to be true the bible is not the only creation story with that kind of beginning so it's a questionable way of establishing proof.
edit on 8-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Wow, that's a tall cup of drink there daskalik! Sure you want to stay on that platform?

If so then kindly please tell these experts they have no idea what they are talking about:



The Big Bang
Watch a video or read the story of the history of the Universe.The night sky presents the viewer with a picture of a calm and unchanging Universe. So the 1929 discovery by Edwin Hubble that the Universe is in fact expanding at enormous speed was revolutionary. Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."

Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. Today NASA spacecraft such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope continue Edwin Hubble's work of measuring the expansion of the Universe. One of the goals has long been to decide whether the Universe will expand forever, or whether it will someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a "Big Crunch?" ...


science.nasa.gov...

Thus all the talents, the technology, the funding the time spent by these people in NASA proving the "Big Bang" was for nothing because you said


"No because it has not been proven. It is only a theory."


Are sure you want to stay the course of the "flat earth" gang?

ty,
edmc2

btw - Moses mentioned also that the earth had a beginning (created). Is this a theory too?
edit on 9-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: btw



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The truth is that the experts are doing their best and as the material you quoted said.


Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be.


Like I said the theory has not been proven. Yes they are gathering more information and someday they may be able to declare it a fact.

That still does not make the bible the only instance of some ancient people stating a beginning to the universe so it's still makes it a rather weak argument for a one and only truth.
edit on 9-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



The Truth of The Bible is Self-Evident!

Not only Propheticly Proven, But Also In Numeric Structure! www.theomatics.com...


God is sovereign, and if He wanted to put a secret and hidden code in the Bible based upon His own wisdom, He has the right to do so simply because He is God.

"Who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?" (Job 9:12).

So really man's ideas on all this have no bearing on reality. Our only honest duty is to determine whether something in the way of a code exists, and if so, to make sense of it as God by His grace reveals things. This is not a theological issue. It is simply an issue of existence or non existence.


Put it to The Test... "The Original CODE in the BIBLE' " Theomatics II" 'Theomatics & the Scientific Method"

Institute for Theomatics Research
P.O. Box 507
Dundee, Oregon 97115
Fax Phone: (503)538-6911



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





As for his writings - are you saying that he got them, learned them in Egypt? Is this including the Ten Commandments? What about the other 600 commandments and the rest of his writings? As for the "flower of life" related to creation - i dunno, most people here ask for scientific evidence to back up a statement so my apology I'm not into myths or mystery schools. ty, edmc2 btw - if i even use this "flower of life" analogy with an atheist or an evolutionists - any idea how they will react?


I'm not an expert on Moses and all of his writings, but most certainly he learned about sacred geometry and esoteric mysteries from Egypt which likely had a major effect on how he understood things. Many years later, Plato was also an initiate of the Egyptian Mystery schools as was Pythagoras. Their experiences in the mysteries also played a major influence on how they understood the true nature of reality.

So obviously you didn't look at what I posted about sacred geometry. Which, if you will notice includes the word geometry, which is wholly scientific and not a myth. As for using it with Athiests or Evolutionists I don't know. It is sound scientifically but as I've stated before, they are as loath to admit that there is a First Cause/God/Whatever name you want to use as the Christians are to admit that they don't have a monopoly on the Truth. I would imagine it depends on how you present it. However since it doesn't seem you jumped threads to look I will repost the images here. As you see, the same sacred geometrical patterns are reproduced in Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Astrophysics. That's about as scientific as you can get and not "myth" at all. As you will notice in the images, all of the platonic solids can be found within the Flower of Life. Also very scientific. I tend to irritate both sides of the Christian/Athiest/Creationist/Evolutionist debate because I both acknowledge that there is a God and insist that the literal interpretation of things misses the mark. Anyway, I'm not being combative, just challenging. I agree with you and I don't at the same time.

In creating this I also looked at the Quran, the Tao te Ching, and a variety of creation myths and stories from various other cultures. I was going to revise these images with the texts of other creation stories but never got around to it. However, every creation story follows the same format: From 1 comes 2, from 2 comes 3, from 3 comes 4, and from 4 the whole of physical creation. It is not, repeat not, the exclusive domain of the Christian story of creation. Take these images and do some of your own reading on other cultures creation myths and you will see what I mean. When you are able to grasp the mathematical and geometrical basis of this other cultures creation stories as well as the account in Genesis can be seen in a different light.

Here is the Chinese Creation Myth for example:


In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again. When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth. According to some versions of the Pan Gu legend, his tears flowed to make rivers and radiance of his eyes turned into thunder and lighting. When he was happy the sun shone, but when he was angry black clouds gathered in the sky. One version of the legend has it that the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind.


Now if one were to read that literally of course it sounds crazy, mythological. But if one were to read it as a metaphorical explanation of the divisions of creation as outlined below it makes a lot more sense. Notice also in the Chinese creation myth there are a number of parallels: In the beginning was one, which was in darkness (void) Upon cracking the egg, 1 divided into 2, the heaven and the earth, Pan Gu forming the third, or the waters that separated heaven from earth. Now, compare that with the Biblical version of creation where first there was just God. Then God created the Heavens and the Earth, then separated them by waters. Here is what it looks like from a sacred geometrical perspective with corresponding images from all of the physical sciences:











I never argued that there was no God. With a creation as perfect and holographic as this how could there not be an organizing intelligence. I just argued that Christianities literal understanding of God and creation is lacking it's full, true breadth



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

OK - I got what your saying - that Moses was visited by an alien and gave him the information he wrote in the Bible. Which part of his writings do you think is of alien origin?

But do you agree though that what he wrote was accurate?

As for the Apocryphal books - I've studied some of them and they are not of the same calibre and authenticity as the Bible, that's why they are not part of the Bible canon.

Notice just one out many apocryphal books:
The Jerusalem Bible says concerning Second Maccabees: “The style is that of hellenistic writers, though not of the best: at times it is turgid, frequently pompous.”


ty,
edmc2


The whole bible is…God is an alien and if he so commanded the angels like the book says he visited more people than just Moses….there is David, Solomon, and many others.

No, I don’t agree that it is accurate, the Bible has been tampered with, it is not accurate anymore, the Illuminati have had their hands on it for over 1,000 years. Their bloodline goes back to the Money Changers at the Temple…

I was raised Christian…so I know the Bible fairly well and still read it…

Also like you said some books were left out, so how can a book with missing pieces be accurate?

The pieces left out were left out for a reason…not because they aren’t authentic; Carbon Testing of the Scrolls was accurate. Not Surprising since that form of testing has proven accurate over and over again.

The whole blind faith thing is too much…I try to go by rules of evidence, there is just too many holes in history to get a good understanding…you can thank the Vatican for that..If anything it points to “God” being of Alien Origin…it still fits the creationist point of view…cause Evolution still has its flaws as well….like the whole foot thing…some people on ATS say we evolved from squirrels, but that contradicts all the other scientists who push the ape/gorilla theory.

edit on 9-4-2011 by Quickfix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


Oh, I absolutely do not doubt that it is encoded in the way you say it is. I just don't come to the same conclusions. Thanks for turning me onto Theomatics though. It looks delightfully interesting and I'll have to check it out more deeply.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The truth is that the experts are doing their best and as the material you quoted said.


Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be.


Like I said the theory has not been proven. Yes they are gathering more information and someday they may be able to declare it a fact.

That still does not make the bible the only instance of some ancient people stating a beginning to the universe so it's still makes it a rather weak argument for a one and only truth.
edit on 9-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Interesting point of view you have there - deskakik.

So in your view none of the things I provided in the OP matter like:
The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.
Consider a few more:
Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997


“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”


“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

www.youtube.com...=619s

Division of Energy Between Photons and Massive Particles
One of the ideas associated with modeling the Big Bang is that the further back in time you project, the more the universe is dominated by photons. We think of today's universe as mostly matter, but the energy of the early universe was mostly photon energy with massive particles playing a very small role.
The amount of energy in radiation in today's universe can be estimated with the use of the Stefan- Boltzmann law, considering that the universe is filled with blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 K.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
www.youtube.com...

Because you say the "big bang" is only a theory.

But can I ask you this question - I'm very curious where you stand:

Evolutionists and atheists alike touted the theory of evolution as a fact. What's your take - fact or fiction?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


thats because using the bible as an infalible history book is the stupidest thing a person could do.

Anyone who does that will soon be searching for a way to kill themselves just to hid from the embaressment.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I did say that both religion and science have their dogma and they both like to come off as "knowledgable", earlier in the thread. Their respective followers (including me) often accept certain things on faith.

Many theists like to say that science is the new religion. The religion of the atheists replacing god with the graph of the evolution from monkey to man. Here is the way I see it. Theories like the Big Bang and evolution can be true. They can even have a lot of data pointing in the direction of them being true and so are accepted as true "in general".

Evolution is there. It is true that evolution is real. Living things evolve. It has been observed. This does not prove that man has evolved from monkeys. So, while you can say that living things evolve and be right, you can't say that man evolved from monkeys is a proven fact.

Big bang as well, sure things point in that direction but to say it is a proven fact is an act of faith.




new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join