Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by Shoonra
Can I prove evolution wrong?

Well, when I look at people like Rush Limbaugh and Scott Walker it's tough to say that they are improvements on the orangutan.

Haha! This is the best evidence against evolution in this entire thread

reply to post by Shoonra

I'd throw Chris Christie and Rick Santorum under the bus as being prime examples as well.

The Big Bang was God speaking light into the universe. The formation of stellar bodies was the formless words which were compared to water in Genisis, were what scientist see today as all those Hydrogen and Helium atoms coming together to create the physical cosmos we knew of then, and what it has adapted over time to be now. The seven days of creation explained in Genisis fits snuggly with what scientist find today in how the world came to be and the life on it to this day. The diffrence is is that 6000 years ago if you tried to explain all of the actual events of creation to someone, it would blow their mind. They were still astonished with the invention of fire, and later animal handling. You can't explain partical physics and quantim mechanics to a primitive person. But through time we learn and therefore evolve. Evolution is true in the terms of growing abaptation and awareness. Where it went wrong was to try to link it all to single cell in a puddle of muck. The very arguement that the varity of life on this planet proves evolution is counter productive. It clearly shows that diffrent beings were formed diffrently. The fact we share so much DNA similarities with the other lifeforms on this planet proves it was from a singluar designer. Like an painter leaves his unique stroke on every painting, even if those paintings differ in style and subject, the brush stroke remains constant. This is true of the work God did at the beginning of time. As for the fossil record, it's there because those things lived and died a long time ago. More than a day or even a thousand years. But taking a "day of God" to be relitive in relation to the passing of time to man, or a "day of man", if you will, is highly ignorant. Not to suggest stupidy, just a lack of knowledge in understanding the relativity of time. Einstine knew this, and even was quoted often in his belief of a supreme being. Not shocking concidering the blessing he recieved to escape Nazi Germany and bless us all with a wealth of knowledge in the subject of understanding both time and space.

lets hear from the professionals.



Nancey Murphy and George Ellis discussed this very point in their book, On the Moral Nature of the Universe:

The symmetries and delicate balances we observe in the universe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions and cooperation of laws and effects, suggesting that in some sense they have been purposely designed. That is, they give evidence of intention, realized both in the setting of the laws of physics and in the choice of boundary conditions for the universe (1996, p. 57, emp. added).


astrophysicis Paul Davies, in his book, The Cosmic Blueprint, opined:

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming (1988, p. 203, emp. added).

British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (1982, 20:16).

In his book, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Davies made this amazing statement:

If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? (1984, pp. 235-236, emp. added).

Eight years later, in 1992, Davies authored The Mind of God, in which he remarked:

I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.... Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here (1992, p. 232, emp. added).

Dr. Tipler authored another book, The Physics of Immortality, in which he professed:

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (1994, preface).

NASA astronomer John O’Keefe stated in an interview:

We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 200).

While many evolutionists willingly concede complexity—and even order—they are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The person who does not believe in a Creator claims no such evidence exists. The individual who acknowledges the existence of that Creator, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of such an affirmation.

We live in an incredibly large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light-years in diameter. [A light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year at a speed of slightly more than 186,000 miles per second. Distances expressed in light-years express the time that light would take to cross that distance.] There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels approximately 5.88 x 1012 miles in a single year; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.88 x 1017 miles, or 588 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.

Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun, which is like a giant nuclear engine, gives off more energy in a single second than mankind has produced since the Creation. It converts eight million tons of matter into energy every single second, and has an interior temperature of more than twenty million degrees Celsius (see Lawton, 1981). The Sun also produces radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be deadly to living things. The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to permit life as we know it. We should be grateful that we live so far from the Sun, because the 93 million miles of empty space between the Earth and the Sun help stop the destructive pressure waves produced by the Sun as it converts matter to energy. If the Earth were much closer to the Sun, human life could not survive because of the horrible heat and pressure. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much radiation (and heat) would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% farther from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.

Fortunately, creatures living on Earth receive some protection from the Sun’s radiation because in one of the layers of the atmosphere (known as the mesosphere—about 12 to 18 miles above the Earth), there is a form of oxygen known as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the Sun that would be harmful (or fatal) in larger amounts. In addition, the Sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is composed of protons and electrons. These particles approach the Earth from outer space at an extremely high speed, and could be very dangerous to humans. Fortunately, most of these protons and electrons are reflected back into space because the Earth was created like a giant magnet that pushes away the solar wind and makes life on this planet both possible and comfortable.

The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. This rotation provides periods of light and darkness—a phenomenon necessary for sustaining life as we experience it. If the Earth rotated much faster, fierce cyclones would stir over the Earth like a kitchen food-mixer. If the Earth turned significantly slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot or cold. Venus, for example, turns only once every 243 days—a fact that accounts in part for daytime temperatures reaching as high as 500 degrees Celsius (water boils at 100° C). The Earth’s orbital speed and tilt are “just right.” Just by accident? The Earth completes its orbit roughly once every 365.25 days—the time period we designate as a year. This, together with the fact that the Earth is tilted on its axis, allows for what we refer to as seasons.

The Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, however, but is elliptical. This means that sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than at other times. In January, the Earth is closest to the Sun; in July, it is farthest away. When it is closer, the Earth “speeds up” to avoid being pulled into the Sun; when it is farther away, it “slows down,” so that it remains in a position in space that is “just right.” How does the Earth “know” to do all of this?

Interestingly, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (see Science Digest, 1981). What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were cut in half—or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and again it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population.

The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. If it were not tilted as it is, but instead sat straight up in its orbit around the Sun, there would be no seasons. The tropics would be hotter, and the deserts would get bigger. If the tilt went all the way over to 90 degrees, much of the Earth would switch between very cold winters and very hot summers.

The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon. This, too, is just right. The Moon helps control the movement of the oceans (tides). This movement is very beneficial to the Earth, because it provides a cleansing of shorelines, and helps ocean life to prosper. Tides are an important part of ocean currents. Without these currents, the oceans would stagnate, and the animals and plants living in the oceans and seas soon would perish. Our existence as humans depends upon the Moon’s tides as they help balance a delicate food chain in nature. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the surface of the Earth.

The Earth’s oceans are another good example of perfect design. Water covers about 72% of the Earth’s surface, which is good because the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing. Eventually, this causes rain to fall on the Earth. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. The Earth’s annual average temperature (56°F; 13.3°C) is closely maintained by the great reservoir of heat contained within the waters of the oceans. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately three-fourths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, yet we often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.

Wrapped around the Earth is a protective blanket we know as the atmosphere. It is composed of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and carbon dioxide (0.03%), in addition to water vapor and small levels of other gases. The proper balance of these gases is essential to life on the Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is too thick to sustain life; that of Mars is too thin. But the Earth’s atmosphere does several things. It scatters light waves so that you can read the words on this page. It captures solar heat so that it does not escape too rapidly. Without atmosphere, the heat would escape as soon as the Sun set each day, and nights would be unbearably cold. Frequently, meteors fall from space. Were it not for the fact that most of them burn up (from friction) when they strike the atmosphere, the Earth would be pounded almost daily by these unwelcome visitors. And, electronically charged particles (ions) in the upper atmosphere (referred to as the ionosphere) help make radio communications on the Earth possible. The Earth has an atmosphere that is “just right.” Just by accident?

Richard Dawkins once remarked: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, 94:130, emp. added). Twenty years later, in an article on Nature’s August 13, 2002, on-line Science-Update, Philip Ball wrote: “Our Universe is so unlikely that we must be missing something.” We agree: evolutionists are “missing something.” But that “something” is actually a “Someone”—the intelligent Designer!

www.apologeticspress.org...

there are two things that do not exist in this wold. that is randomness and infinity.(dwell on that for a while)

-study the nature of "chaos theory"-

Einstein once said "God does not play dice"

the next question should be -"who is this creator,and what is his purpose?, because if there is a purpose there has to be accountability.

Even though this thread's purpose is to provide an alternative explanation for the diversification of life without evolution, I would like to chip in a little bit on the whole creator issue.

Yes, the universe is immense, immensely complex, and filled with varying degrees of predictable order and chaos. Does this imply a creator? If it did, then one would automatically have to concede that the creator was also created. However! If one is willing to accept that said creator simply exists or existed, then why must the universe have a creator? Why does one train of thought only apply to the universe, but not a creator? What if there simply is no genesis, and all things have simply always been, just changing forms slowly over time? The Big Bang may have just been the last major changing event, the collapsing of a previous universe into a brand new one.

To imply a creator must have already existed in order to bring existence into existence, especially one that passed down divine knowledge onto imaginative humans, well, it's just egotistic to me. It makes no logical sense to say that a creator cannot have a creator in order to do the creation. If the universe must come from somewhere, then a creator must come from somewhere.

This is also a major problem with itsthetooth's theory. The aliens. How did they become the way they were? If he doesn't believe evolution is possible, then what way did they form?

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST


After reading through your wall of text, it's evident that your simply arguing incredulity. Inference of design is made because people pushing dogma cannot/ will not envision an alternative.
Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as-lightning, rainbows, seasons and reason.

reply to post by Lasr1oftheJedi

The Big Bang was God speaking light into the universe. The formation of stellar bodies was the formless words which were compared to water in Genisis, were what scientist see today as all those Hydrogen and Helium atoms coming together to create the physical cosmos we knew of then, and what it has adapted over time to be now.

As good a belief as any. Has nothing to do with evolution though. Evolution does not describe how life started.

The seven days of creation explained in Genisis fits snuggly with what scientist find today in how the world came to be and the life on it to this day.

You need to explain this one.

The diffrence is is that 6000 years ago if you tried to explain all of the actual events of creation to someone, it would blow their mind. They were still astonished with the invention of fire, and later animal handling. You can't explain partical physics and quantim mechanics to a primitive person. But through time we learn and therefore evolve.

Why do you believe any of this is true. 6000 years ago man relied on his intelligence to survive. Invented technology with no precursor to act as an example. Our ancestors were astoundingly inventive, intelligent and imaginative. We teach children today in the third world about physics and their heads do not explode and neither would our forefathers and I have no doubt they would have plenty to teach us.

Evolution is true in the terms of growing adaptation and awareness. Where it went wrong was to try to link it all to single cell in a puddle of muck. The very argument that the variety of life on this planet proves evolution is counterproductive. It clearly shows that different beings were formed differently.

Then explain diversity. I see no reason why you conclude that pointing to the diversity we see and explaining it with evolution is counter productive? Evolution clearly describes why organisms evolved differently.

The fact we share so much DNA similarities with the other lifeforms on this planet proves it was from a singluar designer. Like an painter leaves his unique stroke on every painting, even if those paintings differ in style and subject, the brush stroke remains constant.

The fact we share so much DNA with other life forms is exactly the same reason why we share so much DNA with our Mums, Dads, brothers, sisters. We are related. You accept a designer yet cannot accept the designer being described by evolution.

As for the fossil record, it's there because those things lived and died a long time ago. More than a day or even a thousand years. But taking a "day of God" to be relitive in relation to the passing of time to man, or a "day of man", if you will, is highly ignorant. Not to suggest stupidy, just a lack of knowledge in understanding the relativity of time.

You see your brush strokes are not constant. Primitive man could not understand physics but should be able to understand a day being thousands/millions of years? Which is it? Why do you think you can just brush the fossil record off so easily? The DNA evidence and what we observe around us today?

You call it ignorant to claim to know what a day means for a god yet you then deny he may use time and evolution to create the diversity we see today. People cite contradictions in evolution yet their own religions have nothing but contradictions but these are ignored.

Einstine knew this, and even was quoted often in his belief of a supreme being. Not shocking concidering the blessing he recieved to escape Nazi Germany and bless us all with a wealth of knowledge in the subject of understanding both time and space

And this has a bearing on evolution how? Blessing? I acknowledge Einstein’s contribution to science but blessing? Is the atomic bomb holy? Are all the homeless that can never move back home due to radioactive contamination in Japan blessed?

There is always a ying and yang even with knowledge. It is how we use it that matters and denial of all the evidence for evolution to cling onto stories in the bible that even you say are not factual, written for a so called primitive mind is indefensible

When it is closer, the Earth “speeds up” to avoid being pulled into the Sun; when it is farther away, it “slows down,” so that it remains in a position in space that is “just right.” How does the Earth “know” to do all of this?

This is a load of crap. You need to read about the law of gravity and why the earth speeds up. It doesn't magically speed up because it wants to, it's called momentum, you may want to look up the sling shot effect as well. That's how orbiting works because of the laws of physics.

The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to permit life as we know it.

Exact correct distance? The distance changes all year long. There isn't some magical number that has to be the distance. Our global temperature is based more on our atmosphere than distance from the sun. If Venus didn't have such a thick atmosphere, it could possibly be habitable as well depending on the composition and numerous other factors. What you are doing is taking science out of context and looking for little things that fit your theory, while ignoring the numerous scientific facts that point in the other direction.

Creationists are getting more desperate to find things that coincide with their ridiculous worldview where science doesn't apply. It's always, "the universe is fine tuned" or "god made the laws of physics" or "the universe is complex". It's god of the gaps essentially and there's no physical objective evidence whatsoever to suggest a creator or process of creation. Until you have that, you have absolutely nothing but speculation.

reply to post by Varemia

What I mean is that it isn't something that can be tested in a lab. That's why we make predictions based on the fossil record. You are simply assuming that it's false by rejecting all the evidence. Simply put, if microevolution exists, then macroevolution exists. It really is that simple.

Sort of like intervention, it can't be tested in a lab either. I think people are just looking in the wrong places for answers. I think the answers aren't here for a reason, and not because of macroevolution.

Your making an assumption that macroevolution exists. There is nothing that tells us that it does. It's a bold assumption based on the multiplicity of microevolution. The fact is there could be a componet that only allows micro evolution to go on for so far, or so long.

Probably the biggest fork in the road is the the starting point. What is the ground rules for what they base the changes on. As I have been saying for pages now, we have ground rules based on assumptions. We assume 6 feet people are normal because they are common. What I'm saying is that is a pretty weak structure to base what we think is right on. It's also the basis of evolution. We know there are changes because we can see them. What we don't know is if those changes are normal within a species to begin with or actually evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

What I mean is that it isn't something that can be tested in a lab. That's why we make predictions based on the fossil record. You are simply assuming that it's false by rejecting all the evidence. Simply put, if microevolution exists, then macroevolution exists. It really is that simple.

Sort of like intervention, it can't be tested in a lab either. I think people are just looking in the wrong places for answers. I think the answers aren't here for a reason, and not because of macroevolution.

Your making an assumption that macroevolution exists. There is nothing that tells us that it does. It's a bold assumption based on the multiplicity of microevolution. The fact is there could be a componet that only allows micro evolution to go on for so far, or so long.

Probably the biggest fork in the road is the the starting point. What is the ground rules for what they base the changes on. As I have been saying for pages now, we have ground rules based on assumptions. We assume 6 feet people are normal because they are common. What I'm saying is that is a pretty weak structure to base what we think is right on. It's also the basis of evolution. We know there are changes because we can see them. What we don't know is if those changes are normal within a species to begin with or actually evolution.

You're assuming that there is a component that stops microevolution from continuously happening forever. You are also assuming that species have a "normal" that they all started from.

You are assuming far more than the scientists you are saying are wrong. You are assuming that the texts you are basing your intervention theory on are correct. You are assuming what the people meant, and you are assuming that you are right.

I think that I, the one with the physical evidence and DNA, am the one that is more likely to be correct in this scenario.

reply to post by Lasr1oftheJedi


I think one angle people don't give a bother to is "intervention." I feel we were placed here. There seems to be enough evidence of it. The bible tells us its so. We don't fit on this planet and in fact have always and are still being rejected by mother earth. It tells us in the bible that earth is not our home. It would appear that religious peeps took that as you go home when you die. God would seem to be a space alien, and I don't simply mean not from earth, I mean your above average intelligence from someother planet.

There seems to be enough of the bible that concurs. Ezekiel chapter says he visits us in a charriot, hebrews speaks of earth not being our home and there are sections speaking about other planets and actuall aliens. It would appear that every attempt was made to incorrectly understand ambigious words.

We don't even have food here on this aleged home of ours that we can call our food. When you look at examples of say the anteater, you would agree that he is fit for living here and eating here. He even has target food that appears to be made for him. Looking at humans we don't have any food that we can claim as a MAIN food for us. Untill recently it was just figured out that man can actually live on milk and bread. The problem is that bread is processed so it's not natural and milk is from another animal. Milk gets homogenized, pasturized, fortified, processed, packaged, shipped, refridgerated just to get to us. Drinking directly from the cows teat is unsafe as well.

There have been many pages on this thread about why we turned to cows milk to begin with and not a single person here can come up with a reasonable answer. It's its easier, easier then what? If its cheaper, cheaper than what? If its better for us, better than what? The truth is we have nothing to comper it to, and that is because we don't have the food on this planet we need to supply us, so we are adapting by drinking cows milk.

The bible says that many things were provided for us to eat, but its also clear that none of them are from our home. In other words its not our food. You start to see this picture of how we were dumped here, have the wrong food to eat, we don't fit in here, we are destroying the planet, the planet is rejecting us. We aren't from here.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think one angle people don't give a bother to is "intervention." I feel we were placed here. There seems to be enough evidence of it.

None of which you bother to present...

The bible tells us its so.

Yes...it also says people can live inside whales and that a global flood happened although there's ZERO objective evidence for that. In short, the bible isn't objective evidence of anything but what people BELIEVED (aka NOT knew) back then.

We don't fit on this planet and in fact have always and are still being rejected by mother earth.

As the theory of evolution correctly explains, we fit very well. Given that there's no real long term balance on earth (due to changing environments), it's only natural that life often seems like a struggle. But biologically we fit into this ecosystem

It tells us in the bible that

The bible isn't objective evidence

We don't even have food here on this aleged home of ours that we can call our food.

You mean except for all the plants and meat we are perfectly suited to digest?

Comon', you can't be seriously still spewing around that nonsense

Looking at humans we don't have any food that we can claim as a MAIN food for us. Untill recently it was just figured out that man can actually live on milk and bread. The problem is that bread is processed so it's not natural and milk is from another animal. Milk gets homogenized, pasturized, fortified, processed, packaged, shipped, refridgerated just to get to us. Drinking directly from the cows teat is unsafe as well.

So wait...ware you seriously claiming every being that has more than 1 source of food is "not from this planet"? Because that would be a pretty insane statement...

There have been many pages on this thread about why we turned to cows milk to begin with and not a single person here can come up with a reasonable answer. It's its easier, easier then what? If its cheaper, cheaper than what? If its better for us, better than what? The truth is we have nothing to comper it to, and that is because we don't have the food on this planet we need to supply us, so we are adapting by drinking cows milk.

We are drinking milk and eating meat because the energy content is higher. Most predator species' brains are higher evolved than that of its pray. A lion is "smarter" than a gazelle if you want. That extra computing power requires energy, and meat/milk has a much higher energy content than grass for example. You'd have to eat a TON of grass to make up for not eating a gazelle.

You also want to read up on the Neolithic Revolution that explains how humans switched from being mostly hunter gatherers to farming

The bible says that many things were provided for us to eat, but its also clear that none of them are from our home. In other words its not our food. You start to see this picture of how we were dumped here, have the wrong food to eat, we don't fit in here, we are destroying the planet, the planet is rejecting us. We aren't from here.

Friendly piece of advice: If you want to learn stuff, it might help to not use a fiction book like the bible, and instead focus on objective science

reply to post by Barcs

Creationist reply to Barcs's points consisting of moving the goalposts incoming in 5... 4... 3...

reply to post by MrXYZ

None of which you bother to present...

OH just check back for the past 100 pages or so.

Yes...it also says people can live inside whales and that a global flood happened although there's ZERO objective evidence for that.

Yep and it could have been a definition of a ship, but then again there is also the story of moby dick. As far as a flood never happening, what planet do you live on, there is evidence everywhere. Even right where I live right outside my front door is the spokane river that is about a 1/4 mile down the bank. Where did all the water go? Something happened.

In short, the bible isn't objective evidence of anything but what people BELIEVED (aka NOT knew) back then.

Well you keep saying that but you seem to forget that there is zero objective evidence against it.

As the theory of evolution correctly explains, we fit very well. Given that there's no real long term balance on earth (due to changing environments), it's only natural that life often seems like a struggle. But biologically we fit into this ecosystem

So your trying to tell me that you honestly believe that we fit in here as much as other life. I don't know what planet your living on but its not earth.

The bible isn't objective evidence

Thats your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

You mean except for all the plants and meat we are perfectly suited to digest?

Thats incorrect, in fact our bodies have a hard tiime digesting meats, again I think your living under a rock.

Comon', you can't be seriously still spewing around that nonsense

Yep and still unchallenged with anything intelligent.

So wait...ware you seriously claiming every being that has more than 1 source of food is "not from this planet"? Because that would be a pretty insane statement...

Nope, I never said that.

We are drinking milk and eating meat because the energy content is higher.

hum, higher than what? Answer this question please.

We are drinking milk and eating meat because the energy content is higher. Most predator species' brains are higher evolved than that of its pray. A lion is "smarter" than a gazelle if you want. That extra computing power requires energy, and meat/milk has a much higher energy content than grass for example. You'd have to eat a TON of grass to make up for not eating a gazelle.

You also want to read up on the Neolithic Revolution that explains how humans switched from being mostly hunter gatherers to farming

Becoming farmers says nothing about proving its our own food to begin with.

Friendly piece of advice: If you want to learn stuff, it might help to not use a fiction book like the bible, and instead focus on objective science

Well I can see why it is then that you are able to believe in evolution, if your able to make assumptions that the bible is sci fi, it makes sense how your able to believe in evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

We don't even have food here on this aleged home of ours that we can call our food. When you look at examples of say the anteater, you would agree that he is fit for living here and eating here. He even has target food that appears to be made for him.

Ah the anteater. Are you going to finally explain the ant and its many traits it shares with humans that shows either ants are not from here or humans are from here. Which makes the anteaters target food (whatever that means) as full of it as the rest of your nonsense.

The rest of your braindeath in a paragraph has been answered yet again and in many pages previously.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yep and it could have been a definition of a ship, but then again there is also the story of moby dick.

How learned you are. Another wild guess and then a huge dose of ignorance. Moby Dick is about a man hunting a whale not living inside a whale called Moby you dick.

As far as a flood never happening, what planet do you live on, there is evidence everywhere. Even right where I live right outside my front door is the spokane river that is about a 1/4 mile down the bank. Where did all the water go? Something happened.

Is there any subject you do not have a total ignorance of? You really need to get an education

Well you keep saying that but you seem to forget that there is zero objective evidence against it.

Your the one making the claims for it being factual. Its up to you to present the proof. Being a science master you should know that.

So your trying to tell me that you honestly believe that we fit in here as much as other life. I don't know what planet your living on but its not earth.

Do you even realise how stupid that sentence is?

Thats your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

Yep. They say every opinion tooth has is based on nothing but ignorance. The rest of your drivel has come from the same dry well.

reply to post by itsthetooth

OH just check back for the past 100 pages or so.

Done...and all you do is repeat the gospel of that snake oil salesman Pye

Yep and it could have been a definition of a ship, but then again there is also the story of moby dick. As far as a flood never happening, what planet do you live on, there is evidence everywhere. Even right where I live right outside my front door is the spokane river that is about a 1/4 mile down the bank. Where did all the water go? Something happened.

You're confusing evidence for LOCAL floods with evidence for a global flood

As I said, there is no evidence of a global flood that happened at one point in time. Even when the planet formed, it was never fully covered in water.

Well you keep saying that but you seem to forget that there is zero objective evidence against it.

Plenty of evidence against the bible's accuracy...you just keep ignoring it

The bible is FULL of inaccuracies and contradictions.

So your trying to tell me that you honestly believe that we fit in here as much as other life. I don't know what planet your living on but its not earth.

That's exactly what I'm saying...and science backs that up.

Thats your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

The bible being inaccurate and full of contradictions isn't an "opinion" given the link I posted above...it's a FACT.

Thats incorrect, in fact our bodies have a hard tiime digesting meats, again I think your living under a rock.

No we don't. We have issues digesting milk products at later ages, at least some of us. But in terms of meat we aren't in any way suffering from a disability when it comes to digesting meat.

hum, higher than what? Answer this question please.

Higher in energy content. 1kg in grass has less energy than 1kg of meat. It's simple biology.

Well I can see why it is then that you are able to believe in evolution, if your able to make assumptions that the bible is sci fi, it makes sense how your able to believe in evolution.

I'm not saying the bible is science fiction...I'm saying it's fiction. As I proved above, it's full of contradictions...so clearly isn't not factual. Claiming otherwise can be called denial

reply to post by colin42

How learned you are. Another wild guess and then a huge dose of ignorance. Moby Dick is about a man hunting a whale not living inside a whale called Moby you dick.

LMAO!
I can't fathom the ignorance of the tooths. It's like what hell, do you even believe yourself at this point? I think not! how can anyone be so stupid.