Its so hypocritical too. you atheists want church and state seperation but you still want your dogmatic and faith based "evolution" to be forced down the troats of our youth.
~ Hell awaits those who go against the LORD!!!!!!
Its so hypocritical too. you atheists want church and state seperation but you still want your dogmatic and faith based "evolution" to be forced down the troats of our youth.
~ Hell awaits those who go against the LORD!!!!!!
What? The bible tells the whole story of why.
We can put together that if humans were originally to live forever and so quickly fill up the planet and have nothing to stop our intellectual pursuits then we can conclude something.
The universe is for mankind to have settled and manupulated our own planets and creatures from earth to make each family have their own spaceplace.
We are wayyy behind.
The universe is big for the reason it is. To allow development.
A Scientific Prediction from Genesis:
Besides myself, all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.
I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis is true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.
And generally, who wants to hear another's hatreds anyway? Ever been buttonholed in the street by some darkie who wants to tell you in broken English (with pictures!) how awful is Dr Moses Fruitcake, perpetual president of Bongo-bongo (formerly British West Bongoland) and how everyone in that country is now living on one rice-crispie a day, and how he and all his friends have been tortured to death several times now? It may be true, but I have my own problems to deal with, not to mention my serious deficiency in the sympathy-for-others gland. Tell us of your enthusiasms, not your hatreds, that's what I say (or would if I wasn't pretending to be Albanian and ducking into MacDonalds to escape).
[Later in the thread]
I don't think that there is more for me to say, since my points have been born out to a quite extraordinary degree. Apparently no-one can answer my questions or discuss the subject rationally in any way! In the absence of rational response, I think you all have proved quite conclusively that for you atheism consists merely in conformity to societal values, and if that means lynching 'The Enemy' whom your masters designate -- for you have no rational reason to hate 'racists' -- then you are happy to do so. Well! If you say so...
I did enjoy all those little atheist faces twisted with hate and little atheist voices yelling "RACIST!! RACIST!! RACIST!!". [smiley]
All the best,
And then there was a bunch of nonsense that assumes Gallieo was the first to invent the telescope......
Neptune was known for thousands of years by many cultures
[YES FOLKS, IT'S EVERYONE'S FAVOURITE WOO MEISTER AGAIN!!!!]
Did you know that 100 million years ago there were unicorns on the earth? But you see, there were not that many of them. you'll never find a fossil or skeleton.
Well, some people claim you have "ape" DNA in you, it's not true. DNA corresponds to high level principles such as YHVH and the I Ching much more than it does to the contrived and man made theory of evolution.
Of coarse evolution and all historical sciences can't be testable in most or all aspects. This should be self evident.
Yes the past is open to deduction from clues like a crime scene however the scientific method can not be applied to the big conclusions.
All one needs to pay attention to is whether the scientific method can and is applied.
This is why it seems every graduating class turns over some previously solid idea in evolution . Like PE.
Its easy when the original ideas had no tests to back themselves up.
Origin subjects are always about interpretation and then accumulation of data.
Just read carefully the posts here in this thread and you will see all the tests are based on premises themselves. Like fossil sequence and DNA stuff.
In the end origin subjects unlike laws of gravity can not be directly, repeatably tested. Origin subjects are like crime scenes. Here you will find the evolutionists are intel;igent, hard working Scotland Yard detectives. The creationists are Sherlock Holmes. Correcting and correct.
[[If not a monkey than what was the "common ancestor of both chimps and humans"?]
It was an ape.]
yeah, and apes came from monkeys, animals, and eventually you even believe they came from bacteria
So my argument is not wrong
Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.
[FSTDT Climate Science Award?]
Look, the law of gravity isn't so terribly important because it tells us that things fall to the ground. We already know that. What is important is that things fall to the ground at the rate of 32 ft./sec/sec. It is the quantitative precision of the law that makes it important.
Likewise, the greenhouse gas theory of little use to us if all it does is tell us that CO2 has a warming effect. We already know that. Just blow on your hands on cold day and you will see. Without any agreed quantifiable figure, the greenhouse gas theory is of no value. Yes, it will have a warming effect. But how much? Estimates vary from .02-03 degrees C. all the way up to 6 C. for a doubling of CO2.
This is pretty basic science. Why do you need it explained to you?
In the case of humans being supposedly related to animals, that's impossible and I know it isn't true. I know it isn't true more than an ordinary person can know anything with their human mind's.
The computers in front of our faces might just be an illusion, we don't know, I can't say for sure if this computer is real........but garunteed I know evolution is wrong through direct experience and revelation
I don't need to know everything about science to know that when it contradicts what is proven to be true that it is wrong in that specific point it contradicts.
DNA ideas are still just speculation in regards to relationships as Dr Watson
betrays to all.
Neaders are just Celts and kraults who first settled Europe etc and just show that a rigorus adaptation was needed.Then the edges were soften to the present glory.
The better idea is that researchers get their hands dirty in digging for more info on neanders lives. Perhaps one day a neader burial will have a Sumerian jewelly in it and end all this jazz about neaders in time and family tree.
I'm surprised at how you feel you need to cling to the idea that all female animals (or some or any) have pain at birthing.
Perhaps you guys never knew this very pregnany aspect of human reproduction . Not even suspected it.
I insist that only female people have pain at childbirth.
Not apes or elephants.
If I'm wrong then a few references from the science sources you all tell me you haunt should PROVE ME WRONG.
All chips in boys.
The hyaena makes my case. If this is all you got then there must be a fundamental difference between our women and allll the kinds of animals that give live birth. (Unles you saying chickens egg laying isn't as fun as it seems).
I also insist the hyaena is not suffering pain giving birth in any way similiar in its process to the womenfolk. There may be a 2 second yelp for a first birth rip. This doesn't count and shows desperation on your part to say this is birth pains too.
Again I say all my knowledge on human birthpain exclusity is from evolutionist premised literature.
They explain away it by saying upright walking changed this and that. Not about a bigger head but thats a good point too I guess. Though I'd take a baby head over a rhino butt anyday.
Did I hit a embarrassing nerve??
[You'll all love this ... he's done it again!]
You might believe that science has something to do with all this foreign technolgy which is not of the earth's nature and that has been introduced in the last 100 years. It doesn't.
There hasn't been this kind of technology since 10,500 BC, and then all of a sudden it appears and is introduced in the last 100 years?
[responding to "For a project I'm working on I need to present recent evidence in support of Neanderthals being our distant cousins OR are they a direct ancestor?"]
I am a creationist.
The first thing that should be done is to determine if neander females had pain at childbirth. If so then they must be our relatives as only human females have pain. Not animals (including apes).
[Better known as Jake S from his Richard Dawkins forums days, he's changed one letter of his username, but hasn't changed anything else - he's still spamming boards with his I Ching and Atlantis woo ...]
It's an uneccessary theory, and the phenomena is proven to be possible without the theory evolutionists invented to explain it.
It also is not likely to ever be possible without damaging the cells and destroying them
As for why things would have different genomes? Likely their origin is from different dimensions and different vibrational levels of existence
There is no such thing as "fish" gene, or a "bird" chromosome, or a "primate" chromosome. There is no such thing as an "inverted", or an "inside out" chromosome. DNA and Genes simply are whole long strands, of many smaller parts which fit together acording to I Ching principles of Yin and Yang. They can fit together in the same way magnets can be attracted, and just how magnets can be repelled some genes cannot fit. That's all. You have superimposed, and force-fitted human and chimp chromosomes to match, and claimed that proves relation when it does not To say "primate" genes is dishonest. There is no genetic mechanism for evolution, or gene change. It can't happen
[Right...so, if all current types of terrestrial life on earth came from the ark, why didn't the more efficient placentals beat marsupials from Mt. Ararat to Australia and why did marsupials make it at all?]
Did it occur to anyone that cats hate water.And perhaps marsupials could have easily made the swim from Papua New Guinea to Austrailia.
(afdave is a Real Scientist)
The universe appears to be rather full of water? Please. You don't even have any hard evidence for very much water on any other planets in our solar system, much less in the entire universe. The best evidence for water in places OTHER than earth says that there is some in comets and asteroids. Not oceans on Europa and elsewhere.
(This posting speaks for itself)
[Wow! Now this is some serious creo-denial going on!
If the evidence for water on Mars, Europa, etc. is questionable, (!?) What makes you think the evidence for water on asteroids is beyond question???]
Yes, yes, I realize there is a little water ice in these places, but it's very small compared to what's on earth. And we have a mechanism for getting some of earth's massive water supply out into space ... so ... the most logical idea is ... the water came from earth.
Again I ask ... Where is the actual hard evidence that there is any water on any other planets?
No speculation allowed here. If I allow you to speculate, then we might as well say not only is there water on other planets, but also little green men and such.
If you don't have any real evidence for it, then it is most reasonable to say that water in asteroids probably came from earth.
I don't like the word evolve but rather adapt.
Yes I think adaptation takes place instantly. Dolphins would of gone from land to sea in say five years after the flood.
The evidence that creatures change from one state to another is excellent. Only the mechanism and time is a problem.
I believe that marsupials are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. So important, if minor, change can take place quickly. As long as a creature stays within its kind. Whatever that is.
The verse in the bible is correctly interpretated as giants of the deep and not whales.
I think the idea that coal and oil formed gradually is without any support whatsoever ... Totally implausible to me. I think it is much more likely that it was all formed in a single catastrophe ... The Global Flood.
[This cropped up during a gigantic debate on Walt Brown's infamous Hydroplate Theory, a massive piecc of creo-tard that is undergoing a forensic evisceration at IIDB. Here's our resident creationist energiser bunny and part time FSTDT favourite with a retort that many at IIDB think is a classic. For the record, Walt Brown thinks the Asteroid Belt got where it is today because it was blasted into place off the Earth's surface during the biblical flood ...]
It strikes me as odd that YOU think the earth was blasted (indirectly of course) from the Big Bang and managed to land in a perfect orbit at just the perfect distance from a near perfect energy source and had just the perfect mix of elements to provide a perfect environment for life to evolve.
You think it's implausible that the asteroids got blasted into their present orbits because of a much smaller Big Bang here on earth.
You are the Professer. In your knowledge of the hand/biology/medicine what is a specific gain from an evolutionary premise that has progressed the hand medicine.
Of coarse I think there has been nothing and evolution has just hitched a ride on actual biologists achievments.
I am a creationist but I think its unlikely asteroids were propelled up into space. I believe the bible says a third of the stars fell to earth during a cosmic fight between satan the angle Michael. This would be soon after the fall. This explains, if accurate, where the choas we finf in space now comes from. Plus where all the great crators here and on other space bodies come from. The movement during the flood would of destroyed many craters or hidden them. Perhaps many meteors did not actually touch the earth but were destroyed as they entered.
I might speculate that all the devastating meteors is what turned much of the planet into a inhospitalable place and so particular kinds of animals did better then others. Dinos, lizards etc.
Just thought I throw my two sense in.
The Star of Bethlehem was likely the mobile throne of God in Eze 1, the famous sapphire throne. The Father looking down on the birth of His son. That is why the star charts likely won't have a record of it.
The Star of Bethlehem has long been a mystery. Science has not found any star that fits the bill, of the time, and place that it was supposed to shine.
I propose that the star was a flying saucer, based on some evidence from the bible. That would explain why it was not seen far away, and not a 'star' in the modern sense of the word.
I call the vessel, the 'Sceptre'
Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
What about it??
The support to our ideas is our general model based on scripture and practical evidence in the field. We do no more or less speculation then your team in actual analysis.
Oil being fluid makes it more likely to have been made quickly like in a juicer because of analagy to other elements in nature.
I guess its nature as crushed life makes it more common sensical that it was created instantly then long processes.
First. We do come from Africa much less a black origin.
The bible says babel is where men separated to fill the earth.
The black colour and other black attributes is a extreme reaction of the human body to a hostile envirorment. Likewise white is a extreme reaction.
The colours in between are more close to the original.
I suspect skin in the beginning was more adaptable but after all the adapting it shuts down doing any more.
The whitw skin and hair is for one purpose. To allow the benifits of sunlight to be absorbed by the body. The cloudier . over the year, it is the whiter you are. Along with this is also that women are faired because they historically would of covered more of thier body for decency and perhaps more sheltered.
The people in the more cloudy area, very north Europe, had such a cloudy issue that thier bodies reduced almost all pigmentation to red spots and hair. Red headed men, despite being related to the hairist men in the world, shave very little and likewise redheaded women have the lowest hair count of europeon women who have the most hair of any women.
I believe also blue eyes are the result of pimentation issues.
White skin was a extreme reaction to problems met by the first settlers. Finns are white and yet a very asian people (by language) I believe.
The asian skin doesn't need protection from the sun but also didn't have lack of sun issues. Thier hair betrays this
The Asian head is made to deal with a strong dangerous wind. So the eyes, upper cheeks, and uncurling hair are all to withstand the forces of wind.
They were not in a wet world so little hair is needed and pigmentation loss was not needed. They bummped into the ice age about 1800 B.C and so God provided thier bodies with an ability to adapt quickly. Not by natural selection.
The bible is not making it up, it has been there long before you were born, or science was born. It does not at all at all at all have to comply with natural law, unless that law can be proved to apply in the future. (or past) It can't as we have seen on this board. Now, stop expecting us to believe that the entire universe, sun, and earth, and trillions of galaxies once fit in your rectum. Really. How natural is that??
For the record, I did say that evil is a perception of good not existing....since good is the nature of God, and God is omnipresent, good therefore exists everywhere at all times....even when perceived evil takes place. I submit to you that suffering is not evil. I also submit that hatred, violence, and other negative behavior are human created choices and of no responsibility of God's. God turns perceived evil events into beneficial outcomes.
For example the holocaust is a great crime against humanity perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Many wonder why God would allow such a calamity to happen? Are not the Hebrews/Jews His chosen people? Why didn't He forestall the holocaust or prevent it altogether? Why did He allow 6 million Jews and 4 million Slavs to perish in the concentration camps? The answer is God was procuring a Holy remnant to send onto the new nation of Israel He was planning on restoring as he prophesied He would do in Ezekiel 37:
[long Bible quote]
This is the prophesy of the restoration of Israel fulfilled in 1948. God did exactly the same thing when He led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. He procured a Holy Remnant out of their 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness. He purged out the rebellious generations until those who were left were worthy to go onto to Jerusalem (Zion). God is very consistent in how He deals with His chosen people. We will see the same thing again during the Great Tribulation when God procures another remnant to go onto the New Jerusalem (The Messianic Millennial Kingdom). My point is though the holocaust was a great calamity, it was really the birth pangs for the nation of Israel. Where evil was perceived, a great good was actually being contrived by God.
Adam was to live forever. Trees grew in a week. Light other than the sun existed, as there was no stars or sun. The serpent went on his belly soon as God commanded, according to the bible. No millions of years. The earth was not habitable. Man was created in a certain little area, at least we were moved there to live. We named all the animals. These are some of the differences documented in the bible.
Is there any science to say that these things could not have been?
(to move this thread is to close it.)
Your claims have to be supported first. You make the claims, you support them. Otherwise, withdraw them. I mean that. MY claims ARE supported by the bible. Where there IS NO science, that counts as a lot. If you have science, now would be a good time to bring it to bear. If not, the ancient records do counts for something. Better than your nothing. And I only say that because you can offer nothing in the way of proof or evidence for the basis of your deep past claims.
[After making racist comments that were pointed out as such]
Racism. I don't believe this exists or ever did in N America unless brought by immigrants but YOU do.
(Towards a poster recently emigrated from Britain to Canada)
Welcome to Canada. I'm actually opposed to any more immigration (after you) especially peoples unlikely to assimulate. That is third world peoples but also Europeons. Also generally the more different from true Canadians in colour, religion, heritage etc the worst. Most true Canadians would agree with me in Southern Ontario. Its quite bad now. Oakville is a very Canadian area and not ethnic at all.
John Tory said some creationism could be allowed is what I heard.
The search for truth should be allowed in schools. As a foreighner I hope you have full respect for the Canadian peoples desire. After all since you are inheriting our achievment and society you owe us.
We creationists don't know what kinds are but know there fixed kinds.
For example I believe marsupial wolves and placental wolves are from the same pair off the ark. The marsupial is just an adaptaion to a area or from stresses.
Thank you for giving us the Origin of Species, Oh Darwin,
which tells us everything we need to know;
Thank you for protecting me from the need
to think things out for myself,
[Thank you for protecting me from the need]
To find things out for myself,
[Thank you for protecting me from the need]
to ask questions which
I don?t know the answers to.
Thank you for making things simple.
And above all, Oh Darwin,
thank you for my ignorance,
for ignorance is bliss.
ALL viruses are good for human beings, but sad to say, the human being immune systems were wrecked/weakened by sin, then, these viruses are become dangerous.
Many non-theists are always saying that CHURCH and STATE should be separated. Well, if they are Christians, then, we can assume that their babblings are logical. BUT they don't believe the Bible.
The Bible was the one who had given us an idea that the CHURCH and STATE should be separated.
So if you don' t believe the Bible that it is true, then, you are simply saying that CHURCH/BELIEFS and STATE should be conjoined!
[Why "True Atheists" don't exist:]
Logically, my argument is that any alleged atheist that considers God possible, isn't truly an atheist. Considering possibility or not is the title of this thread is it not? Any alleged atheist that asks themselves whether or not God exists is being hypocritical. "The definition of a true atheist considering God is self-defeating. Before you can consider any gods' existence you have to have had granted the possibility that there was a god. If you grant the possibly of God and now deny it, that doesn't change the fact that you personally considered him a possibly."
Once a person gives something possibility to exist, it exists, that person gives whatever that something is meaning, definition, and recognition. The only possible way to be atheist, or as the person I originally responded to; "True atheist" is to not be introduced to the concept of God.
1. The term "Natural Selection" was not appropriate term in science for the changes that are being observed. Nature cannot select for herself. She is not human, she is blind, she has no mind, no will, no reason, no purpose. The best term that Darwin should be using was Species Interrelation.
By using that term NATURAL SELECTION, Darwin had made nature as it was the same with living things like dogs or cats that has the will to survive, therefore has will to select for themselves.
NATURE SELECTION is one of the worst term that he had used, Worst because he did not even think that it denotes supernatural meaning. Why? He had animated nature, like Aessop's who animated many animals in his fable story books.
So Darwin's science was a fable.
2. I also believed that Darwin was thinking like this when he wrote that book.
Species A had become Species B, then, become Species C...then so on. This is supernatural. This is what he meant NATURAL SELECTION.
The fact is that, Species A had become Species A001, then had become Species A00112, and had become Species A200, and had become Species A2111 in the long course oftime. This Species A did not become Species B!This is what I meant by INTERRELATION.
[So, basically, you haven't read On the Origin of Species, and therefore have assumed that a) Darwin was anthropomorphizing Nature and b) that you somehow know what he was thinking.
Perhaps, and, really, I'm just tossing this idea out, I know it's crazy, but...
read the book so you actually possess a small faint glimmer of a clue.]
I have read his book but I am not convince about his findings and conclusion.
a) Yes, indirectly speaking, without Darwin's knowing, he was anthropomorphizing nature. How? He thought to himself that he knew nature more than anyone else on earth. Maybe he had talked to nature (a rock in Galapagos, maybe) in his coffee break, or had received from nature ( a squid, maybe) a documents saying that the origin of all species were caused by nature. And Darwin maybe had these hard facts/evidences from nature that he just kept them before his death and before he die, he thrown them all away. Because if Darwin did not have these evidences from nature, he would simply say that ALL SPECIES are interrelating, the logical and reasonable natural explanation of nature if you observed it well.
b) He was thinking that he was an smart guy of saying that NATURAL SELECTION had caused these new species. But the reverse was true. He had quickly plunged into the pond of supernatural.
I think I have the point, the point that Evolution Theory is not reallly based on natural explanation but in supernatural explanation.
In science, we have OCCAM'S RAZOR and science is using it to choose the simplest and best and most fit explanation, BUt in science it doesn't have, I call it, SAMURAI'S RAZOR, distinguishing scientific explanation from naturalistic to supernatural.
If we have this SAMURAI'S RAZOR, we could help our science to maintain its goal to stay always in naturalistic explanation.
LOOK: Naturalistic science had already labeled humans as animals, why not ask every human if they really evolve or created or not? If both nature and species (except humans) can't talk, why bother to make them as standard in changes of species?! HUMANS can talk, can express themselves...then, ask them. If they all say that they had evolved from lower forms of animals, then, it is natural that humans are the product of evolution process! Then, Evolution is really natural.
Evolution Theory (ET) is not natural science. It is supernatural, fable, mythological, and pokemon-styled- science.
I can prove it.
Now, I am a Christian.
I think Lamarck is is going to make a come back. How was lamarckisim proved false in your opinion?
I don't have a problem looking like an idiot, I have a problem being one.
Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth, it also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for....yet atheists do not believe these things anyway....
Coherent? What's coherent about believing that monkeys can breed human beings? Not a thing. ;)
And neither is it coherent to claim that humans are the product of life on Mars or volcanic debris as scientists on the discovery Science Channel have claimed. :D So sorry, but the imaginations of scientsts are far more irrational and incoherent than anything in the bible! So all they prove is how irrational they have to be to deny God. [waving smiley]
Atheism is born from ignorance...the argument from ignorance...the "evidence causes something to become true" argument...these foolish atheists...there is no point in debating with an atheist at the end of the debate the atheist admits they can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence indicates...these fools when will they learn...
Atheism existed since ancient times....it comes from ignorance unlike other religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc...