Print Page | Close Window

You aint from around here?

Printed From: Main Street Monroe
Category: Voice Forums
Forum Name: Political Voice
Forum Description: Regional and national political opinions
URL: https://voice.mainstreetmonroe.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1592
Printed Date: Nov 15 2019 at 5:44am


Topic: You aint from around here?
Posted By: blueblood
Subject: You aint from around here?
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:17am
This is not an all encompassing list, but merely a start, and food for thought. Things that might have not been covered in our indoctrination process. Let the howling begin.



44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults



The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…


“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…





“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…


“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…


“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…


“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…


“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…


“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…


It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…


Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…


“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…


“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…


“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…


The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…


For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…


When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…


Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…


We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…


“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…


“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way. My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain



Replies:
Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:51am
Annnnnd this is why we rank so low on the global education scores.
 
For starters, Darwin didn't originate the concept. womp womp
Transitional fossils? How about the lizards with feathers....
#6: see lungfish.
#7: right, all of the single celled and basic organisms don't and never did exist. Right.
#15: obviously failed biology
#16: really? REALLY?
#17: My god, science admits it was wrong? Happens all the time, totally unrelated to this
#21: also unrelated
#25: really...

I give up, tl:dr
 
This is beyond unintelligent.
 
Biggest problem is lack of objectivity, if you present a report from an unbiased source (ie., someone not trying to push creationism) it may have merit - this has none.
 
There is a billion times more "evidence" for evolution than in a book written by numerous people over many generations - ie., the bible, torah, and q'uran.
 
How much "evidence" for creation is there? literally zero. what happened to all of the people places and things mentioned in the bible and other religious texts?
 
Evolution has zero relation to pagan myths.
 
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
 
No wonder my generation is so fed up with yours.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Houndog
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.





Not here to argue. Your personal beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter are of no importance to me.

But I must state that unarguably, whomever wrote bullet point #6 must live in a vacuum. This due the fact that one trip to Wal-mart, or anywhere out in public these days, proves this statement to be laughably false.   


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 12:50pm
I too didn't want to argue personal belief - sorry if that was what was interpreted.
 
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:39pm

I'll let Bill Nye explain how I feel about this post. Especially around 1:45




-------------


Posted By: MoneyBags
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 6:41pm
It's nice to see that the creationism standard fare hasn't changed that must.
 
A lot of this stuff could be cleared up with a basic 101 biology course, or a firm understanding of the scientific method.

A lot of this stuff hasn't changed, so the information is out there for people truly curious about it.


-------------


Posted By: MElass
Date Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 8:35pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Annnnnd this is why we rank so low on the global education scores.
 
 
No wonder my generation is so fed up with yours.
 
 
 
Please do not make this a generational issue!!!  I would venture to say that I am of the same or older generation than Blueblood.  Yet even though I have a strong religious/faith-based background, I cannot disregard evolution.  Only a TOTAL lack of understanding of science (Earth science,  geology and biology) and/or a religious intensity that promotes ignorance of said science can explain such fervor in denying evolution.


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:41am
Just about what I expected. I was once just like you, picked and believed what was necessary to support the popular ideas of the prevailing wind. I didn't post to prove or disprove evolution but to show how people can and do believe what they wish to think is true, while completely discounting any and all hard evidence to the contrary. Science and theory become so blurred that they are indistinguishable and actually evolve into fervent validations of faith to whatever side you choose to support, when the facts are, there shouldn't be sides at all but independent evaluations.

The conclusion by almost everyone was channeled in the direction of a creationists when there was little support if any for such a conclusion.

My observation and conclusion has been validated that the whole argument is a religious one, regardless of which side of the argument you might come down on.

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 10:27am
I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”



-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Just about what I expected. I was once just like you, picked and believed what was necessary to support the popular ideas of the prevailing wind. I didn't post to prove or disprove evolution but to show how people can and do believe what they wish to think is true, while completely discounting any and all hard evidence to the contrary. Science and theory become so blurred that they are indistinguishable and actually evolve into fervent validations of faith to whatever side you choose to support, when the facts are, there shouldn't be sides at all but independent evaluations.

The conclusion by almost everyone was channeled in the direction of a creationists when there was little support if any for such a conclusion.

My observation and conclusion has been validated that the whole argument is a religious one, regardless of which side of the argument you might come down on.



You do not understand science, that is very clear.   Way to dodge direct points made and just blab some more.

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:04pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:



I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:<div ="poetry top-1"><p ="line"><span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,</span></span>
<span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">Nor have entered into the heart of man</span></span>
<span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”</span></span>



I expect this to be a popular stance when creationism is abandoned.

-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:53am
Ultimately here's the outcome of this discussion - and I'm speaking to you blueblood.
 
You will not change my (or any of the other folks who know evolution is fact) mind on the subject, and I won't change your (or any of the other folks who doubt evolution is fact) mind. However, the bottom line is that there are no solid arguments that disprove evolution - just as there are none that disprove religion - and I say that as an atheist! :-)
 
The discussion is healthy, but so much of the "research" into disproving evolotion is not objective and almost entirely able to be proven incorrect at best just as the "research" into disproving religion is - total nonsense.
 
Evolution is a theory, yes, but so is gravity. So is relativity. There are solid, concrete observable facts that say hey, this is the best explanation.
 
But for some folks, it's just too impossible for them to consider another possibility than a supernatural cause of creation/existence - and that's fine.
 
Believing one over the other doesn't make you foolish or smart - they're simply attempts to explain our origins.
 
One just has more observable fact, while the other has to be taken on faith - which is why it's called faith :-)
 
 
Cheers.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:55am
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

 
Do those "things" include famine, disease, war, death, despair, pain, and suffering? Wink Sounds like a wonderful being to worship!
 
 
Just givin' you a hard time Smile


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 1:01pm
He is a wonderful being to worship. If you knew Him you would understand that ALL things work for our own good. Yes, we are made to suffer sometimes to learn to appreciate the better things in life. If it never rained our gardens would never grow. (yes I used a metaphor). But  you must understand if we were given everything then we would not learn to be happy with what we have been given.
I do not understand why young children have to die except that sometimes it is good to have someone that has walked through the fire to stand by your side in your time of need.  It was nice to have people that lost their mother to stand by my side and tell me how they coped and how they were able to Praise God for all the things they do have.


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 2:01pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Ultimately here's the outcome of this discussion - and I'm speaking to you blueblood.
 

You will not change my (or any of the other folks who know evolution is fact) mind on the subject, and I won't change your (or any of the other folks who doubt evolution is fact) mind. However, the bottom line is that there are no solid arguments that disprove evolution - just as there are none that disprove religion - and I say that as an atheist! :-)

 

The discussion is healthy, but so much of the "research" into disproving evolution is not objective and almost entirely able to be proven incorrect at best just as the "research" into disproving religion is - total nonsense.

 

Evolution is a theory, yes, but so is gravity. So is relativity. There are solid, concrete observable facts that say hey, this is the best explanation.

 

But for some folks, it's just too impossible for them to consider another possibility than a supernatural cause of creation/existence - and that's fine.

 

Believing one over the other doesn't make you foolish or smart - they're simply attempts to explain our origins.

 

One just has more observable fact, while the other has to be taken on faith - which is why it's called faith :-)

 

 

Cheers.


I suggest you watch the debate Feb. 4, between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the science guy and with an open mind, tell me who won. You expect him to use the bible and religious rants, I can tell you, the bible will not be mentioned. He will use established science and destroy Bill Nye.

That is why Giant Brains refuse to debate him. I have seen them in the past, and though the media will stammer and stutter, it will in effect, end in a draw, but the real winner will be Ken Ham, for he will have shown, just as in global warming, it is not settled, but only of the very narrow and closed mind as has been shown with "settled science" throughout the ages!

All that glitters is not gold, and just because they say and claim it, does not necessarily make it so. It is a closed society and if you go against popular opinion, you are drummed out of the club. IE Ben Stein's "Expelled" is one example that comes to mind.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 4:00pm
Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 4:35pm
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 
Pretty fair analysis I suppose. It will be fun. Ken Ham has more to gain and Bill Nye has more to lose. The evolutionist has maybe never heard anything much other than, the other side are religious fanatics escaped from the asylum. We were all indoctrinated from a very young age that theory was science and absolutely final! When they hear scientific facts and reasoning questioning their learned beliefs, anyone with an open mind could only ask "what was that again"?

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 7:14pm
The creation museum had to install zip lines in order to make enough money to stay afloat.

when you can tell me what zip lines and creationism have to do with each other I will be all ears.

LOL at the idea of Bill Nye being destroyed by this guy.






-------------


Posted By: MoneyBags
Date Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:34pm

The only debate that matters. Ali G vs Kent Hovind the creationist.


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 8:39am
Originally posted by MoneyBags MoneyBags wrote:


The only debate that matters. Ali G vs Kent Hovind the creationist.
Ali G FTW!!!
 
 
Booyakah booyakah


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 10:18am
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 
Pretty fair analysis I suppose. It will be fun. Ken Ham has more to gain and Bill Nye has more to lose. The evolutionist has maybe never heard anything much other than, the other side are religious fanatics escaped from the asylum. We were all indoctrinated from a very young age that theory was science and absolutely final! When they hear scientific facts and reasoning questioning their learned beliefs, anyone with an open mind could only ask "what was that again"?
Here's how I see this playing out:
 
 
Ham wins hands down, especially since the debate is in his arena and is charging for audience admission. I feel the audience will primarily those who doubt evolution, and thus already have their minds made up.
 
Bill Nye will make his case and be viewed as incorrect by the audience.
 
 
When I first saw this I got super excited and wanted to go - until I realized I'd be giving money to said museum - no freakin' way.
 
 
I at least try to consider everything with an open mind. I was never told that science is solid fact, absolutely true, and never changes. Since as long as I can remember, the scientific method and concept of peer reviewed academia has been "indoctrinated" into me - in other words, while science presents facts, through continued work we can show that there is more to the story.
 
 
On the other hand, take creationism - God/It/He/Supreme Being etc., created everything. Only explanation, never changes, and all others are wrong. Sounds like religion to me.
 
 
It's a good show to put on, but ultimately a PR stunt for the museum.
 
Like I said, if you've made up your mind that evolution is some sort of atheist, communist, liberal plot LOL nothing will change your mind - even factual evidence.
 
There was an article I read in PLos One the other day that showed of the two thousand or so writings on evolution - from over 800 authors - only 2, TWO, doubted evolution.
 
Here's some food for thought as it were, evolution is not real? Explain this....
 
 
1. Elephants are literally evolving to lose their tusks
2. Russian feral dogs evolved to understand the subway schedule (indicates increased brain capacity)
3. Hudson River fish are generationally evolving to handle toxic chemicals in the river
4. Peppered moths have changed their coloring over time to match pollution in the air
5. The Lungfish - 'nuff said.
6. Universal DNA code
7. Umm, fossils. Wink
8. Genetic Commonalities
9. Common traits in embryos (even humans look an awful lot like tadpoles at first)
10. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
 
 
 
What kills me is that carbon dating is so hard core denied as false by this crowd - creationists I mean. So because of a perceived fault in one dating method, and entire scientific community is wrong...oooook


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 11:37am
You seem to keep hammering the notion that evolution is strictly a religious movement, when the case is more easily made the opposite is true. Evolution must exist in order for the intellectual mind to ascertain that God does not exist and they therefore are under no authority other than that of man made variety.

Evolution has little evidence since, if true, a non existent fossil trail that should be easily tracked but does not exist, and the premise depends upon there being hundreds of millions of years, the earths age.

All that is necessary to disprove evolution is show that earth is too young for evolution, and the whole theory collapses upon itself. That is what Ken Ham will do, not bring fire and brimstone upon the unbelieving. Science in it's own success has essentially proving that evolution is an impossibility.
But we will see.

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 12:34pm


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 12:36pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

You seem to keep hammering the notion that evolution is strictly a religious movement, when the case is more easily made the opposite is true. Evolution must exist in order for the intellectual mind to ascertain that God does not exist and they therefore are under no authority other than that of man made variety.

Evolution has little evidence since, if true, a non existent fossil trail that should be easily tracked but does not exist, and the premise depends upon there being hundreds of millions of years, the earths age.

All that is necessary to disprove evolution is show that earth is too young for evolution, and the whole theory collapses upon itself. That is what Ken Ham will do, not bring fire and brimstone upon the unbelieving. Science in it's own success has essentially proving that evolution is an impossibility.
But we will see.
 
I'm sorry but no.
 
Fossil trail is visible to the naked eye - carbon dating is accurate.
 
Creationism is religion in disguise, nothing more and nothing less.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 4:34pm



Creation Museum

The February 4 debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at the Creation Museum has generated tremendous interest across America. Online debate tickets for a spot in our 900-seat Legacy Hall sold out in less than two minutes, and coverage in the news media, blogs, and other websites has continued to remain intense.

We have been working behind the scenes in an effort to allow all interested people, wherever they are around the globe, to view this debate live. To this end, we are pleased to announce that this debate will be available to view online and free of charge at debatelive.org. We hope that many will take advantage of this opportunity to view the debate in real time. You may watch the debate at home, or organize a gathering to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups. . . .

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 9:19am
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:




Creation Museum

The February 4 debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at the Creation Museum has generated tremendous interest across America. Online debate tickets for a spot in our 900-seat Legacy Hall sold out in less than two minutes, and coverage in the news media, blogs, and other websites has continued to remain intense.

We have been working behind the scenes in an effort to allow all interested people, wherever they are around the globe, to view this debate live. To this end, we are pleased to announce that this debate will be available to view online and free of charge at debatelive.org. We hope that many will take advantage of this opportunity to view the debate in real time. You may watch the debate at home, or organize a gathering to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups. . . .
 
 
Good to know - persmaps I will watch it afterall - thank you Wink
 
 
Now why would they promote this? "show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups" since those groups think evolution is a sham. couldn't resist Big smile
 
 
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 10:01am
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:




Creation Museum

The February 4 debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at the Creation Museum has generated tremendous interest across America. Online debate tickets for a spot in our 900-seat Legacy Hall sold out in less than two minutes, and coverage in the news media, blogs, and other websites has continued to remain intense.

We have been working behind the scenes in an effort to allow all interested people, wherever they are around the globe, to view this debate live. To this end, we are pleased to announce that this debate will be available to view online and free of charge at debatelive.org. We hope that many will take advantage of this opportunity to view the debate in real time. You may watch the debate at home, or organize a gathering to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups. . . .



 

 

Good to know - persmaps I will watch it afterall - thank you Wink

 

 

Now why would they promote this? "show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups" since those groups think evolution is a sham. couldn't resist Big smile

 

 

 


Good question I believe you will answer your own question once you consider the rationale behind what they are doing, and if you cling to your belief, should be concerned that quite possibly, it may not be as cut and dried, as you have been led to believe! Why do you think an inordinate amount of security is required at the creation museum, a place where the non-believers should just ignore and it will go away?

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 10:14am
I don't think there is anything about evolution cut and dry.

I think it's a complicated scientific theory pushed forward over years of work by the scientific method.

I know that creationism and science have nothing to do with one another. 

I also know creationism isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible.. 

Now you can believe anything you want even when there is zero evidence to support your belief.  that after all is FAITH. 

Just keep your religion out of science books.  The two don't have anything to do with one another no matter how many "museums" you build.




-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 10:21am
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:


I don't think there is anything about evolution cut and dry.

I think it's a complicated scientific theory pushed forward over years of work by the scientific method.

I know that creationism and science have nothing to do with one another. 

I also know creationism isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible.. 

Now you can believe anything you want even when there is zero evidence to support your belief.  that after all is FAITH. 

Just keep your religion out of science books.  The two don't have anything to do with one another no matter how many "museums" you build.





Creation not mentioned in the Bible? Really. You are so wrong, on everything you just mentioned, that I am just going to drop it here and now.
I only wish my faith was as strong as yours appears to be.

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 10:58am
Of course creation is mentioned in the bible.

Creationism is not...neither are dinosaurs

I have no faith.  it is not a requirement for science in the least.

my beliefs are evidence based.....and if the evidence proves my belief to not be true then we move on to what we have learned and now know.  It's called the scientific method.  It is not based in faith.




-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 12:14pm
You said it best "I have no faith". God only allows you to have what you have by His Grace! But the clock is ticking. You only have so much time on this earth to make a decision and even to make no choice to believe that there is a God in Heaven and you are willing to turn your life over to Him. To not decide is as good as saying "No" I do not want salvation and it will doom you to eternal darkness.

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 1:47pm
If I need faith to understand and accept creationism then it very simply put has place in a school or science text. 

that is the only argument here. 


-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Jan 17 2014 at 2:06pm
Understand that faith doesn't mean blind faith.  There is a difference.  There are good, rational reasons to believe in God.   I've purposely avoided this thread because there's no point really, but I will say that anyone who thinks that macro evolution is settled science is mistaken.  Neo Darwinism has *lots* of problems, assumptions and unanswered questions even among the die-hards.  There is plenty of internal acknowledgement of these problems as well when you can catch them speaking candidly.
 
By the way, I hope those of you who believe the Bill Nye/Ken Hamm debate will be a one-sided bloodbath, all I can say is I hope you make it a point to watch.


-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 19 2014 at 1:05pm


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 19 2014 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

 
By the way, I hope those of you who believe the Bill Nye/Ken Hamm debate will be a one-sided bloodbath, all I can say is I hope you make it a point to watch.


I'm skeptical it will be fair.

I think Bill is walking into trap. 

Either way; the only thing the creation museum cares about is attention and making $$$ so they win.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 19 2014 at 7:28pm
Blueblood you have shown time and time again you do not even understand the use of the basic scientific theory.

Expecting you to understand something like evolution is like trying to do Calculus when you can't add.


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 19 2014 at 9:06pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Blueblood you have shown time and time again you do not even understand the use of the basic scientific theory.

Expecting you to understand something like evolution is like trying to do Calculus when you can't add.




Calculus? We have seen that you are incapable of adding or subtracting single digit numbers. Hahahahaha

So YOU explain, where are all those guys in the middle, that all you giant brains claim existed, but no one has seen hide nor hair of? I thought so, come again with some more change up nonsense.



-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 1:02am
Science doesn't set out to prove anything specific; that's what you don't seem to grasp. 

Examples have already been given to you in this very thread.  Either you aren't evolved enough to read and comprehend them or you just ignored them.





-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 1:12am


 

-------------


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:


I'm skeptical it will be fair.

I think Bill is walking into trap. 

Either way; the only thing the creation museum cares about is attention and making $$$ so they win.
Well, it should be highly entertaining no matter which camp you fall in.  I’m not exactly sure what sort of “trap” they could set for Bill Nye, lol.  I’m positive Ken will be a fair and gracious host.  As someone who has listened to *lots* of debates between Christian apologists and atheists I can tell you one thing for sure.  If there is one participant who is hostile or nasty, it is always without exception the atheist.  I have yet to hear a Christian apologist treat any of their opponents disrespectfully.  With the atheist, this is standard operating procedure.  Go listen to a few debates if you don’t believe me.  In fact, I’ve been told that in Bill’s interview with CNN promoting the debate, he won’t even refer to Ken by his name.  He calls him “that guy.” 

 

As for Ken’s motives for the debate, apparently this all came about by an AP reporter who was doing separate interviews with Ken and Bill and made the suggestion to Ken that they should debate one another.  Ken agreed and the rest is history.  The museum is doing fine from a financial standpoint. 



-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

This guy's pretty cute, but unfortunately, he's not transitional.  From the story on Nat Geo:
 
"Though no one has spotted a living pink handfish since 1999, it's taken till now for scientists to formally identify it as a unique species."
 
There is no mention of it being an example of a transitional form.  Furthermore, there are other species of "handfish" that have been identified which scientists believe are millions of years old and are unchanged.  So again, you have to assume it's transitional in order to make the evolutionary puzzle pieces fit because no one has observed it directly or even pieced it together through the fossil records. 


-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 3:51pm


-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:





Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: dad0f3
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.

-------------
If it matters, seek the truth.


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


 I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win.


Creationism isn't science.

It never will be.

That's what you can't seem to grasp.

It's not a debate on science.  It's not a science museum.    The sooner you understand this the sooner you can understand what is really taking place.




-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

  Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.


hold on now...what exactly happens to creationism when you hold it up against honest to goodness scientific scrutiny?  Not to mention.....


This is actually just plain false.  Many people choose only to note the tiny steps (a mutation here, a new function there) and thus believe that only micro-evolution occurs and not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are terms used by IDers to try to weasel their way around the truth of evolution. Micro-evolution is supposed to be changes within a species, while macro-evolution means changes that connect one species to another. In reality, scientists decide when enough small changes have been generated (usually through multiple generations) to label a new organism as a new species. Evolution is evolution, period. Skeptics need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We all know that micro-evolution is observable and testable. A very simple and common example of this is the fact that every few years we need brand new flu vaccines; viruses and bacteria often evolve rapidly and overcome our current treatments. You USUALLY won’t witness a macro-evolutionary step in your lifetime, because a macro-evolutionary step could take tens of thousands of years to occur. However, one macro-evolutionary step could be the same as a hundred micro-evolutionary steps, and a few of those we CAN see in our lifetime. Looking back on our fossil records, we see all of the tiny steps (through our transitional fossils) and then choose to label a certain group of them as a single macro-evolutionary step.

Accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like accepting that seconds exist but not whole minutes.




-------------


Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 20 2014 at 5:39pm
Then, you have nothing to be afraid of, and Bill Nye, the science guy, should just mop up on this knuckle dragging bearded face Aussie. What could go wrong when you are nothing but right?

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 4:05am
There is no debate among scientists about whether evolution occurs, any more than there’s a debate among botanists about whether photosynthesis occurs or among physicists that gravity exists.

Evolution is all around us, all the time. Evolution is why we need to get a new flu shot every year.

Evolution is why your antibiotics are about to become obsolete.

By putting a scientist and a non-scientist on the same stage together, there is a real danger of legitimizing creationism and giving the appearance that both sides are equally valid.

This is not an issue of censorship. Anyone is free to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they like, no matter how unscientific or false. But there is no obligation to portray both sides as having equally strong or valid scientific arguments, when by any measure they do not.





-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 9:19am
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

There is no debate among scientists about whether evolution occurs, any more than there’s a debate among botanists about whether photosynthesis occurs or among physicists that gravity exists.

Evolution is all around us, all the time. Evolution is why we need to get a new flu shot every year.

Evolution is why your antibiotics are about to become obsolete.



At least learn what your talking about! The flu virus becoming tolerant is not evolution.

adaptation (ˌædəpˈteɪʃən; ˌædæp-)
n
1. the act or process of adapting or the state of being adapted; adjustment
2. something that is produced by adapting something else
3. something that is changed or modified to suit new conditions or needs
4. (Biology) biology an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment
5. (Physiology) physiol the decreased response of a sense organ to a repeated or sustained stimulus
6. (Psychology) psychol (in learning theory) the weakening of a response to a stimulus with repeated presentation of the stimulus without reinforcement; applied mainly to innate responses
7. (Social Welfare) social welfare alteration to a dwelling to make it suitable for a disabled person, as by replacing steps with ramps

ev·o·lu·tion < id=":d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" code="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="13" height="21" style="margin-top: 1px; margin-right: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-left: 1px; "><embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" flashvars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/E0256400.mp3" menu="false" width="13" height="21" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"> (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/development" rel="nofollow - development .
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 11:44am
Adaptation is a reason for evolution. It's very simple Bobby.







-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:15pm
Yeah I guess its like global whining, if everything ends were tards want it then its all proof of their theories.
Even though I am not on defense of creation I still find it funny nothing has evolved in recorded history it all just stopped once humans learned to write.

I would like to see some real proof either way! No there is none at this point so dont go into what some scientist thinks. 


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:37pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Even though I am not on defense of creation I still find it funny nothing has evolved in recorded history it all just stopped once humans learned to write.

I would like to see some real proof either way! No there is none at this point so dont go into what some scientist thinks. 

I'm not sure why you believe that nothing has evolved in recorded history, but it's probably because of your last sentence. You want real proof but you won't listen to a scientist! lol who is going to come up with proof then? What is your standard of proof!? 


-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:44pm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/ten-new-or-newly-discovered-animal-evolutions-including-humans

or even cracked

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

There's probably some distractions in there but some of these are good


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 1:38pm
Sorry matt those are weak at best, dogs riding the subway is evolution. LOL you take this serious? Most are poison related. Alcohol is a poison, the more you drink the more you can drink. Does that mean evolution? No it means you adapt to current envronment. But stop drinking for a year and see that it reverses your evolution. Nice try! 

-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 1:42pm
So is this evolution or just islamic sheep herders in the middle east making to much love?




-------------


Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Sorry matt those are weak at best, dogs riding the subway is evolution. LOL you take this serious? Most are poison related. Alcohol is a poison, the more you drink the more you can drink. Does that mean evolution? No it means you adapt to current envronment. But stop drinking for a year and see that it reverses your evolution. Nice try! 

What is your standard of proof? 

Also, can you please explain the difference between adaptation and evolution? 


-------------


Posted By: bobpreston
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 7:31pm
Standard of proof, ugh maybe just life. I have been on both side of the drunk ability through my life. I could drink 2+ liters of 80 proof booze within 6-7 hours and still function. Now I am lucky to get a 750ml down the hatch before passing out. Plus search google for "record blood alcohol levels". Many of those people must have evolved to hit that high of %BAC and live. Not so much they just got use to drinking.

I think I defined the difference above, scroll back.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 7:52pm
Wow




-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 11:44pm
I actually transported a lady to the ER that was unconscious from alcohol intoxication and she had an alcohol blood level of .74. She was almost dead but the hospital was able to reverse her condition but it finally took its toll in later years and she died of a seizure due to alcohol poisoning.

-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 9:30am
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: Matt_Steele
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Standard of proof, ugh maybe just life. I have been on both side of the drunk ability through my life. I could drink 2+ liters of 80 proof booze within 6-7 hours and still function. Now I am lucky to get a 750ml down the hatch before passing out. Plus search google for "record blood alcohol levels". Many of those people must have evolved to hit that high of %BAC and live. Not so much they just got use to drinking.

I think I defined the difference above, scroll back.

You copied and pasted something from the dictionary. But that leaves open many questions. Such as, is adaptation being a cause of evolution? Or put another way, maybe evolution occurs because of a need to adapt. 

A short term "adaption" (if you could even call it that) to handle more alcohol is different than generations of animals breeding and having offspring that are genetically different to adapt to certain poisons etc. It's not like these mice that are evolving to survive our poison are all of the sudden losing that advantage when they get older. 


-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 
 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it. I believe that it should be left to a vote of the people. Not the courts but the general voting public. I for one am tired of a court judge making decisions that affect my family. If the voting public decides to not have it in school then I will teach it to them at home. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ. I do believe that He made this earth along with all the planets and if evolution does exist it is by His hand that it is allowed. And besides you with your non-belief do not have any thing to look forward to in death. But a Christian has a whole life in eternity to look forward to. We have stopped teaching our children that there is a Holy God that will judge us after this life and now they are out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow. That is why this world is in the shape it is in.


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 
 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it. I believe that it should be left to a vote of the people. Not the courts but the general voting public. I for one am tired of a court judge making decisions that affect my family. If the voting public decides to not have it in school then I will teach it to them at home. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ. I do believe that He made this earth along with all the planets and if evolution does exist it is by His hand that it is allowed. And besides you with your non-belief do not have any thing to look forward to in death. But a Christian has a whole life in eternity to look forward to. We have stopped teaching our children that there is a Holy God that will judge us after this life and now they are out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow. That is why this world is in the shape it is in.
Which, don't get me wrong, is perfectly fine. As long as it's not in tax payer funded schools. You want that concept taught to your kids, educate them in a religious school and let the rest of us move on . Big smile

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:12pm
Also, MFD, how many are "out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow" in the name of your God?
 
You're right, I have nothing to look forward to after death because I will no longer be- but I have plenty to be happy about regarding my death - namely an end to any suffering I may be experiencing leading up to death. A final release as it were.
 
If your kids are going to church and religious school, how are they not being taught about God and religion?
 
I don't need the fear of a big man in the sky to make me a good person.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:57pm
And it is your "right" to believe you are nothing more than a cosmic accident, defying astronomically infinite mathematical odds of occurrence.

Thought for today and everyday, without an audible reply being requested or necessary.

Whether you believe or you don't believe, has absolutely zero effect on the outcome of it being real or not real.

Eternity is a concept in which the human brain is incapable of processing!

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 4:10pm
What you really do not understand is that your "suffering" will just be beginning at the time of your death if you do not surrender your life to God. You will be cast into outer darkness with the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I take this to believe you will be thrown into eternal separation from anyone yet you will still be able to hear the lamentations of those around you suffering in the same way.
And yes I think it should be put to a district vote for each school and let the voters decide it they want creationism taught in their publicly funded school. That way you can decide which school district you want to move into.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 5:02pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

It isn't up for vote.  The supreme court has spoken on this.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.








-------------


Posted By: MElass
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 7:00pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:



Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 

And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.










Absolutely right! If you want your children to learn about creationism, send them to a religious school (either full time or "Sunday school") or teach them yourself. Public school should teach proven SCIENCE! Creationism is NOT science.


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 11:12pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

It isn't up for vote.  The supreme court has spoken on this.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.






 
The Supreme Court has no right to tell individual districts what to teach. If the voters in that district want a certain subject in that school then it should allowed.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 23 2014 at 6:18am
Not only does it have the right MFD it's already done it a LONG time ago.

Come back to reality.




-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 23 2014 at 9:33am
MFD they most certainly do - if you can provide evidence otherwise please, by all means...

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 11:51am
Sound familiar? Exactly what is happening throughout this thread! Wonder what everyone is afraid of?
From AIG.

Q: Why are atheists decrying the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham?


A: The media coverage of the upcoming debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye at the Creation Museum continues to grow. Many well-known figures on both sides are speaking out about who they believe will win or about whether there should be a debate at all. Recently, famed atheist Richard Dawkins weighed in on the debate in some impromptu comments on a recent web article decrying the debate.

Unfortunately, at least in his interviews, Dawkins treats his opposition with a remarkable amount of disrespect and offers little more than blind assertions that evolution is true. Perhaps it’s better that he chooses not to debate biblical creationists as he has nothing concrete to offer, except his typical anti-creationist assertions seen in his books and articles. It’s like a child throwing a tantrum.

Dawkins and other atheists don’t want people to hear what biblical creationists have to present. These secularists want to censor what the public will hear, for they know that as soon as people are taught to think critically and correctly about origins, they will understand that molecules-to-man evolution is a belief system. Evolution is really the secularists’ religion to try to explain life without God.

Read the whole article for our response to several evidences Dawkins points to in order to refute creation science, such as radiometric dating and the fossil record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/22/atheist-tantrums-dawkins-debate?utm_source=answers-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=main-question&utm_campaign=aw01252014" rel="nofollow - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/22/atheist-tantrums-dawkins-debate?utm_source=answers-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=main-question&utm_campaign=aw01252014

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:20pm
http://youtu.be/he32vwlKQPY" rel="nofollow - http://youtu.be/he32vwlKQPY

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:24pm
I'd rather revisit your comment about how the supreme court can't dictate what is taught in schools.

that was certainly spoken from a place of being  well informed.

I love the spin from Answers in Genesis.

"...don't want people to hear what biblical creationist have to say"

  Not true.  Not true at all.  You can say it all you want.  We just don't want you saying it under the guise it has anything to do with science.  It doesn't.  It doesn't hold up to the scientific method at all. 

Again if you want to teach this stuff go ahead in your church. No one here is saying you don't have that right.  You can teach about how the earth is flat there too if you want; nobody will stop you.

By the way nobody is throwing a tantrum.  Bottom line is you didn't start with trials and end up with an answer of this creation theory therefore it is NOT science.  You had your answers....and filled in the blanks and made up a good story.  Referring to that as science is an insult to science.  This is what people have a problem with.  People like you masquerading Church, Faith and God as Science. 




-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 26 2014 at 7:52pm
Completely forget evolution for a minute.

The trouble with creation theory is that in order to buy in not only do you have to disregard evolution in general; but pretty much all of science in general.

There is just a huge piece of what we know today to be true that you are basically saying is WRONG.  All while living with the conveniences and modern amenities that sciences provides you with by the way.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140126-grand-canyon-american-southwest-erosion-geology-geophysics/


Unlocking Secrets of the Grand Canyon's Age

Rocks from the iconic gorge provide the clues.

Sunrise over Mt. Hayden in the Grand Canyon.

Sunrise over Mount Hayden in the Grand Canyon.

PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIK HARRISON, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

Sid Perkins

for http://news.nationalgeographic.com" rel="nofollow - National Geographic

Published January 26, 2014

To the untrained eye, the http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/grand-canyon-national-park/" rel="nofollow - Grand Canyon might just look like one big hole in the ground. But to some scientists, the American Southwest's iconic gorge is increasingly looking like several ancient canyons of different ages, stitched together by http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/the-dynamic-earth/weathering-erosion-article/" rel="nofollow - erosion that occurred about six million years ago, and subsequently sculpted into its modern form.

A http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo2065" rel="nofollow - new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, added to more than a century's worth of fieldwork, is helping researchers decipher a geological tale that began unfolding when dinosaurs roamed the landscape.

For nearly 150 years, scientists have been debating how and when the Grand Canyon formed, says http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/kek1/" rel="nofollow - Karl Karlstrom , a geologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In recent decades they've mostly split into two camps: those proposing a "young canyon" model in which the http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/colorado-river-zoomifier/" rel="nofollow - Colorado River alone carved much of the gorge in the past five million years or so, and those suggesting an "old canyon" model in which a series of ancient rivers carved ancestral canyons along more or less the same route. New research by Karlstrom and his colleagues bolster the notion that what actually happened lies between these two extremes.

To help estimate ancient erosion rates, the team turned to http://www2.le.ac.uk/research/festival/meet/geosciences/szameitat/thermochronology" rel="nofollow - thermochronology —the study of how a rock's temperature has changed through its history. Because temperature rises as depth in the Earth's crust increases, a rock's thermal history provides insight into when, and how quickly, terrain above it eroded away.

Analyzing the Rocks

In the new study, the researchers used a variety of techniques to analyze samples of phosphate-bearing rocks taken from four of the five major sections of the canyon, both from river level and from the canyon rim, which typically lies almost a mile (1.5 kilometers) above the river.

One technique, called apatite fission-track dating, involves counting the number of paths carved through apatite crystals by high-speed alpha particles (helium nuclei) emitted during radioactive decay. Because the atoms in these crystals tend to shift and heal such defects at temperatures above 230°F (110°C), the number of paths remaining in minerals today gives researchers a sense of how long ago the rocks cooled below that threshold.

(Read: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131203-grand-canyon-fog-science-nation-weather-national-park/" rel="nofollow - "What Created the Rare, Breathtaking Fog Over the Grand Canyon?" )

Similarly, by analyzing the amount of radiogenic helium trapped in apatite crystals, the researchers could estimate how long ago the rocks cooled to below 86°F (30°C).

Finally, by measuring the length of fission tracks remaining in apatite crystals, the team got an idea of how long those minerals remained at intermediate temperatures.

So How Old Is It?

Like several previous researchers, Karlstrom and his colleagues found that different parts of the canyon formed at different times. One of the oldest segments, named the Hurricane segment after a famed geological fault, lies in the western portion of the canyon. Data suggest that this stretch of the gorge had been carved to about half its current depth between 70 million and 55 million years ago.

But the researchers posit that erosion hadn't started etching a section that geologists have dubbed "Eastern Grand Canyon," immediately downstream of where the Little Colorado River joins the Colorado, until some 25 million years ago. And the team's analyses suggest that the westernmost and easternmost segments of the canyon were largely carved in the past five million or six million years.

Karlstrom and his colleagues argue that while the Hurricane and Eastern Grand Canyon segments were originally sculpted by different rivers, the Colorado took over the job in the past six million years, joining the disparate canyons and carving them wider and deeper.

"Overall, I think they've done a really good job," says http://www.geo.arizona.edu/%7Ereiners/" rel="nofollow - Peter Reiners , a geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "This new model isn't just a compromise of all previous notions; it's recognition that a big river can have a complicated history."

Not everyone is convinced. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/people/wernicke/profile" rel="nofollow - Brian Wernicke , a geoscientist at the http://www.caltech.edu/" rel="nofollow - California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, points out that interpreting thermochronology data, especially fission-track data in terrain where erosion carves downward as well as sideways, is notoriously difficult. "The new model seems to be much too complicated," he says.




-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 27 2014 at 9:39am
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
1Corinthians 1:27


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 27 2014 at 4:06pm
that's the best you have?

The grand canyon is a giant trick on mankind?




-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 27 2014 at 8:43pm
Not a trick but a wonder of His glorious hand!

-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 7:24am
That's not how I read that passage. 


-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 8:43am
OK then MFD, let's discuss this gem...it's a favorite of mine :-D
 
Isaiah 34:7   and I quote:
 
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
 
 
Unicorns....UNICORNS.
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 9:08am
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

OK then MFD, let's discuss this gem...it's a favorite of mine :-D
 

Isaiah 34:7   and I quote:

 

"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

 

 

Unicorns....UNICORNS.

 



Are there unicorns in the Bible?


Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12, KJV.) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.

Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration.

Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength.

The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”


-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 10:48am

I guess I should post a disclaimer on my opinions, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or shame or claim their belief is absurd - I'm really not. But I will voice my own belief even when it's totally opposite. That's all - no disrespect or ill will meant Smile

 
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 11:32am
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.).


......and when you can produce a unicorn fossil you will have a point.

People didn't just dream up the dodo bird from drawings on a cave wall; we have actual physical evidence that they once existed.  They are called fossils. 

Now unicorns on the other hand, nobody has ever found a unicorn fossil.....that's where faith comes in again.

So just to summarize....you believe in unicorns, but NOT that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon.   I can't think of a better point to show why a real conversation rooted in science simply cannot take place. 

I don't mean that as an insult; it's just the way things are.





 








-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 11:46am
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.).


......and when you can produce a unicorn fossil you will have a point.

People didn't just dream up the dodo bird from drawings on a cave wall; we have actual physical evidence that they once existed.  They are called fossils. 

Now unicorns on the other hand, nobody has ever found a unicorn fossil.....that's where faith comes in again.

So just to summarize....you believe in unicorns, but NOT that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon.   I can't think of a better point to show why a real conversation rooted in science simply cannot take place. 

I don't mean that as an insult; it's just the way things are.





 






Ah you beat me to the punch.
 
 
 


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.).


......and when you can produce a unicorn fossil you will have a point.

People didn't just dream up the dodo bird from drawings on a cave wall; we have actual physical evidence that they once existed.  They are called fossils. 

Now unicorns on the other hand, nobody has ever found a unicorn fossil.....that's where faith comes in again.

So just to summarize....you believe in unicorns, but NOT that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon.   I can't think of a better point to show why a real conversation rooted in science simply cannot take place. 

I don't mean that as an insult; it's just the way things are.





 








Ah you beat me to the punch.
 

 

 


You mean like the fossil evidence that has never once been found, yet you believe wholeheartedly that we came from apes and the universe is just one cosmic collision of an accidental happening! Who really has the strongest religion and the greatest of faith?

Whether you believe or don't believe, has absolutely zero effect on whether it is real or not. The human brain cannot comprehend eternity.




-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 1:16pm
We've gone over this.

In this VERY thread.

I'm not doing it a second time.




-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 2:36pm
On the flipside, where are all of the cities, records or people places and things mentioned in your bible?

By your logic, your faith is not true due to supposed lack of evidence.

From a historical perspective, some things line up - jerusalem, egypt, rome, etc...

what about the other stuff?


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 2:37pm
And are you really debating if we've found the interspecies remains? seriously?

-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: blueblood
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

On the flipside, where are all of the cities, records or people places and things mentioned in your bible?

By your logic, your faith is not true due to supposed lack of evidence.

From a historical perspective, some things line up - jerusalem, egypt, rome, etc...

what about the other stuff?


The Bible is the most accurate historical document known to man in finding archaeological cities that it references. It has been proven over and over to be accurate and is taken as the "gospel" for everything except its religious references. It has been question over and over, only to be ultimately shown to be correct.

Wonder why if it is so accurate, it is believed as the Bible, but only up to the point of salvation? {rhetorical question square)

-------------


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 28 2014 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

On the flipside, where are all of the cities, records or people places and things mentioned in your bible?

By your logic, your faith is not true due to supposed lack of evidence.

From a historical perspective, some things line up - jerusalem, egypt, rome, etc...

what about the other stuff?


The Bible is the most accurate historical document known to man in finding archaeological cities that it references. It has been proven over and over to be accurate and is taken as the "gospel" for everything except its religious references. It has been question over and over, only to be ultimately shown to be correct.

Wonder why if it is so accurate, it is believed as the Bible, but only up to the point of salvation? {rhetorical question square)


that's not entirely true.

the bible talks of plenty that can't be found.

Where's the big boat?

And let's not forget about that guy that lived in the belly of a fish for a few days.  Gee I wonder why people don't take that part seriously.




-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 29 2014 at 8:57am
And for that matter, where are sodom and gomorrah, the garden of eden, babylon, the tower of babel, the cave jesus was laid to rest in.....hmm?
 
While there are plenty of artifacts from the Bible that are verifiable, I would suggest there are even more that are not. Which makes sense considering its a collection of stories passed down from generations - so there is bound to be loads of inaccuracies.
 
 
How many of us have an uncle, grandfather, neighbor etc., that at one time had a car that got 100mpg with some super secret carburetor that the car company showed up and confiscated?
 
A stretch, but similar concept.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 29 2014 at 9:33am
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

And for that matter, where are sodom and gomorrah, the garden of eden, babylon, the tower of babel, the cave jesus was laid to rest in.....hmm?
 
While there are plenty of artifacts from the Bible that are verifiable, I would suggest there are even more that are not. Which makes sense considering its a collection of stories passed down from generations - so there is bound to be loads of inaccuracies.
 
 
How many of us have an uncle, grandfather, neighbor etc., that at one time had a car that got 100mpg with some super secret carburetor that the car company showed up and confiscated?
 
A stretch, but similar concept.
 
Archaeologists believe they have found the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah. They have also found the ancient cities of Babylon which by the way was most likely the location of the tower of Babel. If they continue to dig through the rubble they may find pieces of the tower. And the tomb of Jesus is also known. And guess what? There is no body inside. Why? Because He was raised by the hand of God on the third day. People saw Him and not just a few. It was several hundred that saw Him and you still will not believe even when these artifacts are presented to you but will believe the untruth of evolution. What can I tell you that would make you believe? Nothing but what you chose to believe. But I am still motivated by His love to tell of His saving grace and how you too can be found in His love eternally. Only He can give you eternal life but you can chose eternal death.


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 29 2014 at 12:18pm
jesus tomb has been found?

Yeah...James Cameron found it...LOL....and you know what else he found?








-------------


Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 29 2014 at 9:01pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

And for that matter, where are sodom and gomorrah, the garden of eden, babylon, the tower of babel, the cave jesus was laid to rest in.....hmm?
 
While there are plenty of artifacts from the Bible that are verifiable, I would suggest there are even more that are not. Which makes sense considering its a collection of stories passed down from generations - so there is bound to be loads of inaccuracies.
 
 
How many of us have an uncle, grandfather, neighbor etc., that at one time had a car that got 100mpg with some super secret carburetor that the car company showed up and confiscated?
 
A stretch, but similar concept.
 
Archaeologists believe they have found the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah. They have also found the ancient cities of Babylon which by the way was most likely the location of the tower of Babel. If they continue to dig through the rubble they may find pieces of the tower. And the tomb of Jesus is also known. And guess what? There is no body inside. Why? Because He was raised by the hand of God on the third day. People saw Him and not just a few. It was several hundred that saw Him and you still will not believe even when these artifacts are presented to you but will believe the untruth of evolution. What can I tell you that would make you believe? Nothing but what you chose to believe. But I am still motivated by His love to tell of His saving grace and how you too can be found in His love eternally. Only He can give you eternal life but you can chose eternal death.


Right back at you chief - no matter how much proof is presented regarding evolution, the earth's age etc., if you choose to believe its some sort of scam, then I can do nothing else.

That's the funny thing about science, is true whether you believe it or not.


-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: jrock1203
Date Posted: Jan 29 2014 at 9:19pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.).


......and when you can produce a unicorn fossil you will have a point.

People didn't just dream up the dodo bird from drawings on a cave wall; we have actual physical evidence that they once existed.  They are called fossils. 

Now unicorns on the other hand, nobody has ever found a unicorn fossil.....that's where faith comes in again.

So just to summarize....you believe in unicorns, but NOT that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon.   I can't think of a better point to show why a real conversation rooted in science simply cannot take place. 

I don't mean that as an insult; it's just the way things are.





 








Ah you beat me to the punch.
 

 

 


You mean like the fossil evidence that has never once been found, yet you believe wholeheartedly that we came from apes and the universe is just one cosmic collision of an accidental happening! Who really has the strongest religion and the greatest of faith?

Whether you believe or don't believe, has absolutely zero effect on whether it is real or not. The human brain cannot comprehend eternity.




All this visual does is explain your lack of understanding about evolution in general.

While the old (read: incorrect) mindset was the evolution was a linear progression - as in your chart, modern science has reached agreement that evolution is not necessarily linear, but rather includes multiple branches and has no real direction. As far as missing fossils - well its not that hard to explain. As early as the 1800s, fossils of prehistoric man were being uncovered in good numbers - and they were legit - not the infamous piltdown scam you love to quote. As the world has become less unknown and more explored, we find more remains on an almost regular basis. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a single "missing link" because there is no single jump from A-Z - there are multiple changes over time leading to multiple versions - much that your chart alludes to. However, as with many things over time, they are just lost to time.

Using the logic you've displayed, here are a small collection of reasons that I do not believe in the magic man in the sky

Let's get the disclaimer setup, for this argument we'll accept the bible is the perfect word of god and completely accurate and infallible - as some of you claim it is. That being the case, please, explain some of the following

Let's begin..

  • Exodus 15: God is a God of war.
  • Romans 15: God is a God of peace.
  • John 10: My Father and I [Jesus] are one.
  • John 14: My Father is greater than I [Jesus].
  • Genesis 7: 7 of each clean animal into the ark.
  • Genesis 7: 2 of each animal [clean or unclean] into the ark.
  • Numbers 12: Moses was a meek man.
  • Numbers 31: Moses had all the men killed so he could keep the women and children for himself.
  • Psalm 92: The righteous shall flourish.
  • Isaiah 57: The righteous shall perish from the earth
  • Matthew 27: The last words of Christ: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".
  • Luke 23: The last words of Christ: "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit".
  • John 19: The last words of Christ: "It is finished".

So if infallible, why does god contradict itself? God is either schizophrenic, or is nothing more than amalgamation of stories and beliefs rolled up into one epic poem.


Jesus father: Jacob (Matthew 1:15) or Heli (Luke 3:23). This directly conflicts with Jesus being born of a virgin - if that's the case, he has no father and thus genealogy listed in the bible is useless and completely wrong.


Genesis 1 and 2 have different timelines of what god accomplished on each day. In one, adam is made on the 3rd day, on the other all of the vegetation is made. So which is it.


God is all good, all loving etc...then why is there uncountable suffering and pain?


Infinite punishment for finite sin? really?


While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity


You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.  And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
 


You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
 


Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!


You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
 
  You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
 
  You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

Sorry to rant, and per usual - I mean no offence, honestly. I have zero issue with religion at all, as long as it's not affecting me, the laws we all have to obey, or my kids. If religion provides you solace and happiness, that is a wonderful thing.






-------------
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Posted By: retiredmilitary
Date Posted: Jan 30 2014 at 5:43am

Ok I was going to just continue to read but.

 

The tower of Babel is in Iraq. (Seen the remains)

 

Garden of Eden is believed to be located as to what is now Al Nasiriya in Iraq.

 

Little history on Sadam Hussain he believed himself to be the (not sure how to put it) almighty in his palaces there are murals of the past present and future all Sadam the almighty. He was having the tower rebuilt so he could reach the heavens as told to me by an Iraqi.

 

I had the fortune of walking through the excavated remains of Abrahams house and received history from an Iraqi whose family was curators of the site for many generations.

 

I have also stood on the top of the ziggurat.

Keep in mind the info on the tower of babel is as told to me from an Iraqi and their beliefs.


-------------


Posted By: MoneyBags
Date Posted: Jan 30 2014 at 7:12am
About that Tower of Babel.

I'm curious about what you mean.

Do you think that the tower used to exist as mentioned in Genesis?

Meaning that there actually existed a tower with people trying to reach Heaven, and that this is actually possible? 

Or do you believe that the tower was just a city built by people who shared one language, and that this is how we can explain people speaking different languages?

I just gotta ask because apparently some folks believe in unicorns around this joint. 


-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 30 2014 at 7:35am
Originally posted by MoneyBags MoneyBags wrote:


I just gotta ask because apparently some folks believe in unicorns around this joint. 


What belief in unicorns isn't ok with you?












-------------


Posted By: cmsquare
Date Posted: Jan 30 2014 at 7:39am
Originally posted by retiredmilitary retiredmilitary wrote:

 

Garden of Eden is believed to be ......

 

Little history on Sadam Hussain he believed....

 

Keep in mind the info on the tower of babel is as told to me from an Iraqi and their beliefs.




Oh...they believed.  It must be true then.  I mean it just MUST be.

Do they believe in unicorns too?  

If I believe I can fly can I?

I mean no offense but we are talking about real things here.  People tell me Machu Picchu exists and i can go see it with my own eyes.  Same with the pyramids.  These things when you see them are undeniable.  The only sites I see referencing the ruins of the tower of babble are all creationists based religious sites.  Why is that?




-------------


Posted By: MFD50
Date Posted: Jan 30 2014 at 10:16am
Jrock, I can see your ignorance of the Bible. I too was this way until I gave my life to Jesus and He gave me the Holy Spirit which began to explain some of these seeming contradictions. If you were willing to confess your sins and accept Jesus as your Saviour and God's Son that gave His life for us on the cross so we can live eternally with Him in Paradise then you too will start to learn of the mysteries of the Bible. I will attempt to explain some of these that you have posted.
 Exodus is a song by the Israelites singing to God about Moses and God saving them from the Egyptians. Romans explains what God is for He is a God of peace and He gives you the only true peace in the world.  
 
In John; Jesus, the Father God, and the Holy Spirit are one. Yet the Father is over the Son. Just like a household where there is the father and two sons. The father is over both sons yet there is one older son and a younger son where they both have a vested interest in the house and the protection thereof.
 
In Genesis Gods explains that Noah shall take two of each unclean animal and seven of each clean animal. How do you know which are clean and unclean? In Leviticus 11 they were taught the following
 Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
 
In Numbers you confuse the word 'meek' with the word 'weak'. Just because Christians are 'meek' does not mean they are 'weak' but it means they are 'humble'. Just because they refuse to revolt at times and allow themselves to be harmed it is for the glory of God. All the Apostles were injured and all but one was martyred. This action brought thousands of people to Christ because they wanted what the Apostles had and were willing to die for. Just like Christ died for us. Do you not think the Son of God could have come off the cross and killed every person that did not believe in Him. He could have assembled an army of angels that would have wiped the earth clean (and one day He will). But instead He chose to give His life away so that we can have His saving grace. Seems kind of odd doesn't it? But God's ways are not our ways.
 
 Psalms are prayers and songs and they are singing that the righteous will flourish and we will. It will be at the end of time and we are all in Heaven and there will be a new Earth that we will live with God forever. And Isaiah is a prophet that predicts the end of this earth and the rapture where all the righteous will be taken up to heaven by Jesus leaving all the non-believers to suffer through the Tribulation period (a time of trials and suffering of 3.5 years).
 
And finally what you have quoted in Matthew, Luke, and John is the crucifixion where Christ is suffering. Where He says "Why have you forsaken me?" He has never been separated from God but at this point God has put all sin (past, present, and future) on Christ's body and since God cannot be where sin is He has separated Himself from the Son until He delivers the sin back to Satan.  Which He does go into Purgatory or Hell and redeem those that believe He is the Christ. So just before He dies He tells God and those standing near that He is going back to the Father that sent Him with "I commend my spirit" and then He tells them "It is finished." which pertains to His work here on earth. He is leaving after doing what the Father sent Him to do and He will be sending the Holy Spirit to replace Him. Now since He was only one person He could only be in one place at one time but the Holy Spirit since He does not rely on our physical laws can be everywhere at once. So everyone that believes can have the Holy Spirit within them and communicate with God at any time.
 
I hope this answers your quotes in the most basic way I could think of. There is a lot more to it. More than I know at this point as I am learning more everyday and every time I read my Bible and God reveals more of His plan to me. It is a very exciting time in the life of a Christian as we can see God getting more and more ready to send His Son back for us. It may not be in my lifetime but it is close as all the predictions from the old prophets have been completed except the signing of a peace accord between Israel and their enemies. And that you can see is coming.  


-------------



Print Page | Close Window