posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:07 PM
As well, be careful to say that you know there were carnivorous animals millions of years before humans existed. Your science is failing you here.
You also say that humans have existed for a couple of million years; you also say that humans have ancestors that came before us; and then they had
ancestors before them; and then they did as well. But where do you draw the definitive line between what is human and what is not? You classify your
types by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. This is a man-made system. While there is some intelligence behind this system, you
cannot place your system upon God and claim that He is out-of-line. That is ridiculous considering you must make changes to your system all-the-time
to try to fit in newly discovered life. Humans are not just what you classify as "homo sapiens". But then, also, you fail to understand that the
instruments that you use to determine the age of things are incredibly limited in their ability to actually determine age. You base your discernment
of the age of things on the current state of matter. But this is silly because you yourselves also have a science that states that there is time
dilation and a science that discusses thermodynamics and a science that discussions relativity and quantum mechanics. Those of us who are wise to
believe in God and what He has said (careful to note that just because someone claims to be a minister of God, it does not make them so) are being
bombarded by the science of physics and the science of archaeology - two sciences which completely and utterly disagree with each other on so many
levels - and yet both are considered proof against God's Word? If you wish to argue with God concerning His creation, then you should probably learn
about the whole instead of picking and choosing your arguments; and especially by not picking on those Christians who have full faith in the Lord and
need not that creation must be proven to them in a certain way for them to learn that love is the message - not God's understanding of physics. If
you wish to debate with God concerning His physics, then debate HIM. Not those who are wise enough to pay attention to the more pressing matters.
Try inspecting the universe while taking all things into account; your narrow view in your narrow field is not nearly enough. Imagine if you will
that you are a parent and you understand many things concerning the household. Now imagine if you will that you have a child and he decides he is
going to learn how the house runs. He pays attention for a while and finally comes to a conclusion. He says to you, "I know how this house is
run." And you say, "Is that so? Then tell me about it." He says, "Food. Without food, nothing would get done. If we didn't eat, then we
would starve and die. Then we would not wash the clothes, do the dishes, even prepare more food; we wouldn't go to work, go to school to learn;
nothing would happen if we didn't eat." Then you say, "I see. So you're saying that food is the reason that all things here are accomplished?"
The child says, "Yup. No food, no life!" Then you say, "You know, the other day I told you to clean your room and it didn't get done. Did you
eat that day?" The child thought for a minute and said, "Yes I did eat. But I simply decided not to clean my room at that time." Then you say,
"So then food did not accomplish what I wanted. I gave you food and your room did not get clean." The child says to you, "Only because I chose
not to. I wouldn't have been able to make the choice without having the energy of food." Then you say, "So you are saying that food gives you the
choice? Then are you saying that I should take away your food so that you will have no choice?" The child responds, "If you take away my food, I
will die. I will have no choice if I am dead." Then you say, "Oh, I see. So you are saying that my choice to take away your food would affect
your ability to make your choice." The boy says, "But you would not be able to make that choice if you did not have food!" Then you say, "What
if I made the choice to not eat?" The child responds, "Then you would die." Then you say, "Would that not be my choice?" The child
contemplates for a minute and says, "But if you didn't have food up to this point, you wouldn't be able to make the choice to reject the food."
And then you have him. You respond, "So you're saying that food gives you the choice to have food?" And he says, "Yes. Without food, you have
no choice." Then you say, "If food came before choice, then how could the first food have been eaten unless it was fed to you without your
By scientists' own admission, many of the species that exist today are many different interpretations of the same kind of creature. At the time of
Adam, there were not as many different "species" as we would call them. Aren't the lion and the house cat the same? Both are feline.