NationStates Jolt Archive

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible? And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?
Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.

Start naming some of these digs that confirm the bible. As far as I'm concerned, the bible was wrong in so many other things especially the great flood. There you go. You have yourself a huge contradiction. Furthermore, there have been extensive searches for things mentioned in the bible and these things have never been found.

Start naming some of these digs that confirm the bible. As far as I'm concerned, the bible was wrong in so many other things especially the great flood. There you go. You have yourself a huge contradiction. Furthermore, there have been extensive searches for things mentioned in the bible and these things have never been found.So just because you think something wrong makes it wrong?

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible? And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?
Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.
There are transitional fossils. Thousands of them.

Here's a small sample:

Archaeopteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Rahonavis
Unenlagia
Sinornithosaurus
Caudipteryx
Nomingia
Dilong
Beipaiosaurus
Scansoriopteryx
Omnivoropteryx
Microraptor
Cryptovolans

And all of these are from a small branch of life. I can give many more if needed.

On an aside, don't quote-mine, like you did to Patterson. It ruins any and all credibility you might have.

So just because you think something wrong makes it wrong?

The bible simply isn't true. And the great flood is contradicted by evidence, not what I think. There was a flood but it was local.

So just because you think something wrong makes it wrong?
Ffc2, you do have to provide your evidence. It's the rules of debate. Name the digs, and what they found, and then we can talk.

The most curious thing to me is the lack of archaeological evidence verifying the presence of the Jews in the Sinai peninsula, who supposedly wandered around on it for 40 years. You'd figure they'd drop some stuff.

And actually, evolution can't really be credibly defused so easily; we've actually seen some of its effects in written history. Your average European is much taller now than he was 400 years ago, for example. Dietary changes in some regions of the Orient has many anthropologists speculating that we will see a change in theur skin tones, body structure, and so forth. I could probably go on. Probably.

And yes, cite your sources. The onus of proof in any debate generally falls on the person who makes the positive statement: i.e. "There is a God" or "Welfare works" or what-have you.

lol what contradicts it? Because you said it was makes it so? (btw check some israel digs sorry if i got name wrong.)

lol what contradicts it? Because you said it was makes it so? (btw check some israel digs sorry if i got name wrong.)

You need to start showing some of these digs. As far as I've seen people looking throughout Israel have come up empty handed. And there is no evidence for a great flood, in fact only a local flood. Local floods happen frequently in history. It isn't because I'm saying so.

So just because you think something wrong makes it wrong?
And there goes your whole argument. Because I wasn't going to bring this point up, but you brought it up yourself. Just think about what you said for a moment after reviewing what you asked.

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible? And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?
Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.

I'd love to see a single, credible source that PROVES that all 'missing link' is bogus.

Cite, please?

And, you must be aware that the Venus of Willendorf (being about 25,000 years old) is CLEAR evidence that the Creation Myth (which makes the whole world about... what, 6000 years old?... is untrue?

Not a good start, my friend.

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible?

Scientifically, you can't prove things true; you may only prove things false. I'd also suggest you name at least one of these purported 25,000 digs.

And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference?

...you're kidding, right? There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that many Biblical stories simply cannot be taken literally, and there have been quite a lot of artifacts and fossil evidence that dates to before 6000 years ago - which certainly contradicts young-earth creationism.

Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking.

That's just nonsense. I have no idea what "missing links" you're referring to, but you simply can't argue that every fossil linking an earlier species to a later species (or genus, family, etc.) is fraudulent or misidentified. That's silly.

Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?

Once again, there is no such thing as evidence to prove ANY theory true. That's not how science works.

Also, here's a quote from Dr. Patterson himself, directly contradicting you:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

Ffc2, show us some objective and fair websites which provide evidence of those many, many digs you cite as well as digs which provide evidence for Evolutionism. What I'm saying is, show us a site which provides those digs but which also provides conflicting evidence, for that is only fair. And you're all for fairness in debate, aren't you?

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

Still no links or citations. In fact I question your numbers. You could of easily made them all up. The great flood has been disproven because of ice core dating. It shows no great flood. Ice core dating goes back +- 160,000 years.

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)
You forgot insects.

Incidentally, that doesn't prove that they could all fit, since the dimensions of the boat have to be taken into account as well. It would be like me telling you I could prove that 1+x=7. Part of the equation is missing. A rather significant one, at that.

"Proof exists, go look it up," is not any kind of a strong argument.

Kindly provide references to these unnamed digs so that we may examine the evidence.

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible? And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?
Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.
so you're saying there's a lack of evidence on the part of the theory of evolution?
umm... i think there's even less real evidence to support the theory of creationism - some info on these 25,000 digs would be helpful. and how come this "fact" is hardly well publicised? and what do you mean by "evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible" - you can't mean fossils because creationism doesn't say anything EXTRA that evolutionism and its supporting evidence doesn't.

besides, the biggest biblical contradiction i can think of is why it never mentions the dinosaurs, and yet we keep discovering their fossils all round the place. i mean the dinosaurs were the numero uno species on the planet for a long, long time... and isn't it odd that this book just forgets to mention them?



and another thing: why is it always evolution vs creationism? why do creationists leave the big bang theory alone, seeing how this is where the scientific explaination of creation begins :confused:

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

Elephants aren't that small, you know.

Also - anything NOT in the Ark was destroyed... read Genesis, my friend:

Genesis 7:4 " every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth".

Genesis 7:21 "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man":

Not to mention, of course, the rather bizarre fact that, according to Genesis, Noah even had to take whales, orcas and dolphins into the ark:

Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life".

Your statistics PROVE nothing... and argue AGAINST the literal interpretation of Genesis... what are you trying to prove?

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

You grossly, grossly unerestimate the number of species on this planet. To date, more than 1.8 million have been named, and we know quite certainly that there are a great many more out there. Most estimates I've read tend to be in the vicinity of 10 million or more.

You also overlook the fact that a global flood would cause the seas and the inland waters to mix. Have you ever seen what happens when you put a freshwater fish in saltwater or vice versa? It isn't pretty. Noah would have had to have some pretty extensive aquaria on the ark to fit in all the creatures who couldn't survive in the altered salinity levels.

Also, just a small note: If Noah actually had built this proverbial arc, it would [obviously] be an enormously large vessel. Assuming he lived in an area that happened to have other humans in it, a significant amount of collaborating evidence would exist somewhere. Also, a ship of that size in order to deploy properly would have to have a crew of thousands.

And if the answer to this is "God piloted the ship," I'm going to scream.

Mammals 3,700
...
arthropods 838,000
...
total 1,72,305


You appear to be missing a digit in the total.

Also, just a small note: If Noah actually had built this proverbial arc, it would [obviously] be an enormously large vessel. Assuming he lived in an area that happened to have other humans in it, a significant amount of collaborating evidence would exist somewhere. Also, a ship of that size in order to deploy properly would have to have a crew of thousands.

And if the answer to this is "God piloted the ship," I'm going to scream.

Considering the quantity of verifiable, credible proof so far issued in support, you MIGHT want to prepare to scream... :)

Also, just a small note: If Noah actually had built this proverbial arc, it would [obviously] be an enormously large vessel.

'twas about 150 metres long IIRC.

Considering the quantity of verifiable, credible proof so far issued in support, you MIGHT want to prepare to scream... :)

In support of a great flood? No... there isn't...

'twas about 150 metres long IIRC.
And they wonder why there's so many skeptics.

And if the answer to this is "God piloted the ship," I'm going to scream.

What, because you expected it to make sense? :p

In support of a great flood? No... there isn't...
It's called sarcasm.

And they wonder why there's so many skeptics.

What's wrong with that? It was just 150m long, about 50m wide, and 14 miles tall, including all the containment chambers and associated oxygen pumps and other such equipment to stop the deadly (micro-)organisms from killing Noah and each other.

It's called sarcasm.

You see? I hate forums.. I can never see it..

What's wrong with that? It was just 150m long, about 50m wide, and 14 miles tall, including all the containment chambers and associated oxygen pumps and other such equipment to stop the deadly (micro-)organisms from killing Noah and each other.

Such contemporary health considerations may have been unneccesary, given the recorded longevity of humans at that time it appears safe to assume that they were much more resilient to infection than modern man.

And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?

Artifacts contradicting the bible? Plenty! Virtually any archaeological evidence of human existence prior 4000BC, not to mention the LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD.

No transitional fossils? Wishful thinking? I don't think so. There's so many fossils along some lines we don't know where to start, dinosaur-bird transition is an example. Very well-known is also reptile-mammal transition and (more recently) land mammal whale conditions. I'm sorry, but i can't give you any better than transitional forms, not some kind of weird chimaera (ie 'half-paw-half-flippers).

Sorry to say that, Ffc2, but you're dead-wrong there. :rolleyes:

Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.

Naw, I won't insult you or anything. Btw, just out of question, what happened with your bad burns? I hope you're allright again. :)

You see? I hate forums.. I can never see it..

The sooner we get and tags instituted the better.

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

First of all, you are forgetting about extinct species (which make about 99% of all known species - Dinosaurs alone have a few hundred *known* genera), and second, regarding aquatic animals, many of them are freshwater species that would have been killed of by the change in salinity. Thus, your considerations are pretty flawed here...

(and don't forget how they got prevented from eating each other, Noah's family, etc etc)

EDIT: How did you get to that low figure of arthropods? Last time I checked, Insects alone was over a million... or has environmental destruction taken it's toll?

Such contemporary health considerations may have been unneccesary, given the recorded longevity of humans at that time it appears safe to assume that they were much more resilient to infection than modern man.

...good point. Irrelevant, and definite proof of at least micro-evolution (though it'd be excellent if you could inform us what selective pressure had caused a reduction in man's immunity!), but a good point from the Creationist "If there's a point potentially supporting us then it's true" standpoint.

However, forget humans; what about all the other animals? Have their resistances dropped with time? And how did he feed them all for forty days and forty nights?

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

Yeah, all those small animals like . . . elephants.

You can stop now guys, hes gone.

You've been told the truth too many times on this forum, you've refused to see it. At this point there's no point arguing with you. We may as well talk to a stone. No, wait, stones are sensible enough to remain silent.
Tell me, just what rational part of your brain thought it would be a good idea to post something like this with someone like me in the thread? Opinions are fine and welcome, but you can't expect me to turn a blind eye to a dig like this. I've seen you claim like every other rulebreaker that you didn't know you were doing anything wrong: if that's the case you should probably stop saying things like this.

Since I'm interested in giving you a chance here, I'll wait patiently for you to delete that comment.

Tell me, just what rational part of your brain thought it would be a good idea to post something like this with someone like me in the thread? Opinions are fine and welcome, but you can't expect me to turn a blind eye to a dig like this. I've seen you claim like every other rulebreaker that you didn't know you were doing anything wrong: if that's the case you should probably stop saying things like this.

Since I'm interested in giving you a chance here, I'll wait patiently for you to delete that comment.

Um, what? :confused:

Um, what? :confused:
Drunk commies has gone through at least three different incarnations, and each has been deleted due to rule breaking of some sort or other. Melkor is a moderator, and is being very resonable and letting him delete the post that he just made, which happens to be a flame, before he gets a warning, or even worse things happen. As by now, commies should know better

Drunk commies has gone through at least three different incarnations, and each has been deleted due to rule breaking of some sort or other. Melkor is a moderator, and is being very resonable and letting him delete the post that he just made, which happens to be a flame, before he gets a warning, or even worse things happen. As by now, commies should know better

I'm afraid he's gonna be deleted a third (fourth) time, which may be permanent. :(

I'm afraid he's gonna be deleted a third (fourth) time, which may be permanent. :(
well in my experiences, the mods have been fair, and admitted their mistakes. But enough with that, we should /threadjack

Drunk commies has gone through at least three different incarnations, and each has been deleted due to rule breaking of some sort or other. Melkor is a moderator, and is being very resonable and letting him delete the post that he just made, which happens to be a flame, before he gets a warning, or even worse things happen. As by now, commies should know better
The Moderator. I was the first one :D

And yes, I'm doing this primarily to show him firsthand just what the problem is and give him a chance to fix it himself. Generally, I favor a pretty light touch as far as forum moderation goes. If, however, Ffc2 logs on and has a problem with this, I will in all probability have to reassess the situation.

Drunk commies has gone through at least three different incarnations, and each has been deleted due to rule breaking of some sort or other. Melkor is a moderator, and is being very resonable and letting him delete the post that he just made, which happens to be a flame, before he gets a warning, or even worse things happen. As by now, commies should know better

How is that in any way shape or form a flame? If that is considered a flame you people have sevearly thin skin.

How is that in any way shape or form a flame? If that is considered a flame you people have sevearly thin skin.
It was the stone thing, I personally don't think it is flameworthy, but MU hinted that it was one, and is giving him a chance to correct it.

How is that in any way shape or form a flame? If that is considered a flame you people have sevearly thin skin.

I agree, Ffc2 is clearly deranged or being argumentative for it's own sake. Drunk Commies is stating a position with which no rational person could disagree.

I thought the stone thing was quite apposite, and fairly polite considering the delusional ramblings from the other party.

How is that in any way shape or form a flame? If that is considered a flame you people have sevearly thin skin.
"Trying to answer this question is like talking to a rock. You're stupid for offering your opnions." Feel any different about it now?

It's not so much a question of what I think is a flame, it's a question of what the admin does. Ad hominem attacks such as this one [invective aimed at the author of the remarks as opposed to the remarks themselves] are clearly defined as flaming under the site's regulations.

If something should actually become of this [I doubt it will], you may raise your concerns once more in the Moderation forum. However, at this time it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion here.

EDIT: and just as a note, the strength of Ffc2's arguments are irrelevant to this discussion; no one is obligated to respond to them.

"Trying to answer this question is like talking to a rock. You're stupid for offering your opnions." Feel any different about it now?

It's not so much a question of what I think is a flame, it's a question of what the admin does. Ad hominem attacks such as this one are clearly defined as flaming under the site's regulations. You are the admin, aren't you?
[i]
If something should actually become of this [I doubt it will], you may raise your concerns once more in the Moderation forum. However, at this time it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion here.

EDIT: and just as a note, the strength of Ffc2's arguments are irrelevant to this discussion; no one is obligated to respond to them.

So what was the point of your post

"Trying to answer this question is like talking to a rock. You're stupid for offering your opnions." Feel any different about it now?

Not realy. I've seen and been subjected to real flames.

It's not so much a question of what I think is a flame, it's a question of what the admin does. Ad hominem attacks such as this one [invective aimed at the author of the remarks as opposed to the remarks themselves] are clearly defined as flaming under the site's regulations.

If something should actually become of this [I doubt it will], you may raise your concerns once more in the Moderation forum. However, at this time it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion here.

Hell when is it nessisary to continue any discussion? I do however feel it is important to discus the diferences between a flame and a comment made out of mild frustration at a persons unwillingness to suport their arguments.

EDIT: and just as a note, the strength of Ffc2's arguments are irrelevant to this discussion; no one is obligated to respond to them.

So you don't consider actions against him? Whew, that means we have him a bit longer :)

I am not an expert on this topic but I do know a few things about the archeological digs that have occurred in the middle east.
Cheaphis has been found, (the one who sentenced Jesus to death)
Josephius (a first century historian) attests to many of the bibles stories.
A peice of the book of John was found in Egypt dating back to the second century AD. We don't have any of the autographs but we do have fragments very close to that time period.
We have the Dead Sea Scoles that date back to around the time of Christ which give us great insight into the scriptures from the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and demonstrate the reliability of the Old Testament.
They have dug up a city with a replica of Solomen's Temple in Jerusalem, which is nice since Solomen's Temple and Herod's have both been destroyed.

Also scholars are not sure exactly were the true Mount Sinai is. The one located on the Sinai peninsula is just a guess.

Josephius (a first century historian) attests to many of the bibles stories.

Most of Josephus was forged after the fact. His actual works never even mention Yeshua. Also, provide a source. If you don't, no one will listen to you.

I'm not sure that digging up a city or historical figure mentioned in the bible really proves the veracity of the bible.

I believe historians have located Ithaca, that doesn't mean that Odysseus blinded a cyclops or heard the Sirens on the way there. I'm sure many of the cities referenced in the bible are real, like Rome or Jerusalem, but that doesn't really support the existence of any supernatural entity. Mecca is mentioned in the Qu'ran, so is that the true religion also?

I have no problem with Christians, I married one. I just worry when archaeology is used to support the supernatural.

I could easily write a religious text, extolling the virtues of worshipping the Great Flying Dog, and mention New York City in it. Two thousand years from now, I'm sure archaeologists will be able to find evidence that a city called New York did in fact exist, but it in no way lends any veracity to my (admittedly silly) religion. :)

Of course the places mentioned in the Bible are likely to have existed. Where else were they going to write about? oO

Edit: Darn it, Saint Curie! Stop posting what I was going to post before I post it! :D

I could easily write a religious text, extolling the virtues of worshipping the Great Flying Dog, and mention New York City in it. Two thousand years from now, I'm sure archaeologists will be able to find evidence that a city called New York did in fact exist, but it in no way lends any veracity to my (admittedly silly) religion. :)

Of course the places mentioned in the Bible are likely to have existed. Where else were they going to write about? oO

Edit: Darn it, Saint Curie! Stop posting what I was going to post before I post it! :D

sorry, my bad. But if you are truly a prophet of the Great Flying Dog, your coming has been foretold, in the "Codex of Ultimate Indisputable Truthish Stuff", wherein it was written "Hey, is that...is that a...is that a dog? Wow, look at the set on 'im."

There are transitional fossils. Thousands of them.

Here's a small sample:

Archaeopteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Rahonavis
Unenlagia
Sinornithosaurus
Caudipteryx
Nomingia
Dilong
Beipaiosaurus
Scansoriopteryx
Omnivoropteryx
Microraptor
Cryptovolans

And all of these are from a small branch of life. I can give many more if needed.

On an aside, don't quote-mine, like you did to Patterson. It ruins any and all credibility you might have.



*removes archaeopteryx from that list*


No frauds allowed :p

*removes archaeopteryx from that list*


No frauds allowed :p
Archaeopteryx isn't a fraud. If you want to claim that eight specimens found over a period of over one hundred years are all frauds, you're welcome to do so, but if you can't provide evidence for your outlandish, practically libelous claims, no one is going to take you seriously.

*removes archaeopteryx from that list*


No frauds allowed :p

*boggles*

Could you give even one piece of evidence that Archaeopteryx is a fraud? There have been multiple specimens discovered by entirely diferent people at entirely different times, all of which show all the signs of being perfectly real. Is it some sort of vast conspiracy? (And if so, what are the paleontogists conspiring about? Pro-birdicism? Anti-coldbloodedness?)

*boggles*

Could you give even one piece of evidence that Archaeopteryx is a fraud? There have been multiple specimens discovered by entirely diferent people at entirely different times, all of which show all the signs of being perfectly real. Is it some sort of vast conspiracy? (And if so, what are the paleontogists conspiring about? Pro-birdicism? Anti-coldbloodedness?)

It was the (in)famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (also know for inventing the term 'Big Bang' - and ridiculing it - he's also frequently quoted by Creationists when they say Big Bang didn't happen) who claimed Archaeopteryx was a fraud. I think he claimed that the skeleton was real but the feathers were faked (and made of cement).

However, I'm sure that Hoyle was wrong (simply because the feather imprints can be found on both sides of the limestone plates and match exactly, not to forget there are 8 specimen plus a feather, found over nearly 150 years).

Nonetheless, even though he was wrong that doesn't prevent Creationists from frequently quoting him. :D

It was the (in)famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (also know for inventing the term 'Big Bang' - and ridiculing it - he's also frequently quoted by Creationists when they say Big Bang didn't happen) who claimed Archaeopteryx was a fraud. I think he claimed that the skeleton was real but the feathers were faked (and made of cement).

However, I'm sure that Hoyle was wrong (simply because the feather imprints can be found on both sides of the limestone plates and match exactly, not to forget there are 8 specimen plus a feather, found over nearly 150 years).

Nonetheless, even though he was wrong that doesn't prevent Creationists from frequently quoting him. :D

Oh, well - I guess I'd rather they accurately quote people who are flagrantly wrong than misquote and misrepresent people who actually know what they're talking about, as the OP did in his first post.

I wonder how I've missed the anti-Archaeopteryx propaganda till now? I've been debating creationists for years...

*removes archaeopteryx from that list*


No frauds allowed :p

Ah, here we go again. I'm not sure if you ever fully explained this the last time archaeopteryx came up...

It seems to me that you, as a creationist, by making bold statements like this without explaining why a dinosaur couldn't have feathers you are basically saying that there are certain things which God wouldn't/couldn't do, such as create a feathered dinosaur. Hubris?


Aside from which, I'm not sure if you ever commented on the existence of other structures possessed by the archaeopteryx, such as the wishbone, which are now limited to birds.

ffc2

Start naming some of these digs that confirm the bible. As far as I'm concerned, the bible was wrong in so many other things especially the great flood. There you go. You have yourself a huge contradiction. Furthermore, there have been extensive searches for things mentioned in the bible and these things have never been found.
I expected this type of answer of someone from Los Angeles, man, is there anyone from California that believes in God?

Personally I do not belive that the Bible is 100% fact by any means, some of what is included is far too far fetched to be reality at any time. I do belive the Bible is a good book, and there are certain parts of it that people will gain a lot from, but should not lead there lives by it - it can not be taken literally. In my optinion. Anyway I also wanted to post the below:

Major Archaeological Finds
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND SIGNIFICANCE
Mari Tablets Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to Abraham's time period, explain many of the patriarchal traditions of Genesis.
Ebla Tablets Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the Deuteronomy law code. The previously thought fictitious five cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
Nuzi Tablets They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to the patriarchal accounts such as maids producing children for barren wives.
Black Stele Proved that writing and written laws existed three centuries before the Mosaic laws.
Temple Walls of Karnak, Egypt Signifies a 10th century BC reference to Abraham.
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)
Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)

Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC)
Show that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too sophisticated for that period.
Ras Shamra Tablets Provide information on Hebrew poetry.
Lachish Letters Describe Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give insight into the time of Jeremiah.
Gedaliah Seal References Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
Cyrus Cylinder Authenticates the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to allow the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).
Moabite Stone Gives information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Illustrates how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the Assyrian king.
Taylor Prism Contains an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem during the time of Hezekiah, king of Israel.



PAST CHARGES BY CRITICS ANSWERED BY ARCHAEOLOGY
Moses could not have written Pentateuch because he lived before the invention of writing. Writing existed many centuries before Moses.
Abraham's home city of Ur does not exist. Ur was discovered. One of the columns had the inscription "Abram."
The city built of solid rock called "Petra" does not exist. Petra was discovered.

The story of the fall of Jericho is myth. The city never existed. The city was found and excavated. It was found that the walls tumbled in the exact manner described by the biblical narrative.

I say unto you, Just as the days of lot people were comiting adultery and worshiping idols before God brought judgement just as he will strike his rage against all on the day to which has been chosen before the fundations of the world.

I say unto you, Just as the days of lot people were comiting adultery and worshiping idols before God brought judgement just as he will strike his rage against all on the day to which has been chosen before the fundations of the world.
He has to exist to judge someone :p

As i have said it shall surely come to pass

I say unto you, Just as the days of lot people were comiting adultery and worshiping idols before God brought judgement just as he will strike his rage against all on the day to which has been chosen before the fundations of the world.

Eh?

As i have said it shall surely come to pass
We will see … I have a feeling not … but if it makes you feel better to think so have fun with it

Hipocrite, how can a blind man lead the blind? For he shall surely fall. But those who are in the Lord are not blind but see

As i have said it shall surely come to pass

Proof?

The proof will come but those who mock the servant of He shall be punished for their disbelief

Hipocrite, how can a blind man lead the blind? For he shall surely fall. But those who are in the Lord are not blind but see
*starts singling Mannford Mann* “blinded by the light …”

How does that make me a hypocrite?

Anyways from my point of view you are the one blinded by religion

The proof will come but those who mock the servant of He shall be punished for their disbelief
You would like that but I doubt the lord really cares much if we question someone that pretends to preach his word

I think he would want us to think critically about ALL “messengers” of god

*starts singling Mannford Mann* ?blinded by the light ??

How does that make me a hypocrite?

Anyways from my point of view you are the one blinded by religionDo not mock my Father or Brother. You have been blinded by false teachings, by people who did not wish to believe but since the Lord has created science to and all things in.

*starts singling Mannford Mann* “blinded by the light …”

How does that make me a hypocrite?

Anyways from my point of view you are the one blinded by religion

Well said thrusty one.

it's frightning to see someone take somthing so literally and it seems you have not been given the opportunity to think for yourself in some way which seems scary to me. I'm a christian and I do not for one second belive that you could class yourself as anything but a fundamentalist. God is love.

You would like that but I doubt the Lord really cares much if we question someone that pretends to preach his word

I think he would want us to think critically about ALL ?messengers? of GodBut you believe none of them so you will be judged.

Do not mock my Father or Brother. You have been blinded by false teachings, by people who did not wish to believe but since the Lord has created science to and all things in.
And you have been blinded by religion … blinded and duped into following what is only a possibility

I am going to laugh if you got the lords message wrong and he makes you eat penut butter for all eternity (no milk or fluid of ANY kind either!)

But you believe none of them so you will be judged.
So will you :) I believe the lord judges everyone

Hipocrite, how can a blind man lead the blind? For he shall surely fall.

Am I the only one here that finds this offensive towards the blind?

So will you :) I believe the lord judges everyoneBut there you have to believe in the Lord first but i have been forgiven so he will not judge me since now i am sinless in his eyes

Am I the only one here that finds this offensive towards the blind?
No kidding … specially if you caught yesterdays smallville … Clark has awesome hearing he managed

i am sinless in his eyes

Surely that is for the Lord to determine? Sin of pride, and all that?

Surely that is for the Lord to determine? Sin of pride, and all that?i do not have pride i have truth. I tell people i am forgiven which is truth not pride

i do not have pride i have truth. I tell people i am forgiven which is truth not pride

Being forgiven requires something to be forgiven for - sins - thus one can either be forgiven or be sinless. You have claimed to be both in the past ten minutes. Which one is it?

i do not have pride i have truth. I tell people i am forgiven which is truth not pride

Hey, just out of curiosity, did you take a look at my earlier posts? You might see there's wisdom in my words... ;)

because i was forgiven now i am without sin for a time until i tresspass again

because i was forgiven now i am without sin for a time until i tresspass again

You still haven't explained how you have the authority to declare yourself without sin - isn't that up to T'Lord to decide?

because i was forgiven now i am without sin for a time until i tresspass again

Hold on a sec, what about Original Sin? :confused:

because i was forgiven now i am without sin for a time until i tresspass again
BLASPHEMER only JESUS is sinless!

You know, I've been observing this Ffc2 for a while, and I've come to realize a pattern to how he does his posting. Whenever he starts a thread, it usually is in normal speak, the kind most posters use when they start a thread.

But the moment the opposition gets heavy, he goes into the preachmobile mode where he starts posting like he's some kind of divinely inspired person making prophecies. Which until proven otherwise, I'd say he's not.

You'd think it was some kind of affliction or something. Temporary insanity anyone?

You know, I've been observing this Ffc2 for a while, and I've come to realize a pattern to how he does his posting. Whenever he starts a thread, it usually is in normal speak, the kind most posters use when they start a thread.

But the moment the opposition gets heavy, he goes into the preachmobile mode where he starts posting like he's some kind of divinely inspired person making prophecies. Which until proven otherwise, I'd say he's not.


Interesting hypothesis, as a matter of fact he leaves most of my argumentations untouched. He's gone now again btw (that was a rather short visit!)

You know, I've been observing this Ffc2 for a while, and I've come to realize a pattern to how he does his posting. Whenever he starts a thread, it usually is in normal speak, the kind most posters use when they start a thread.

But the moment the opposition gets heavy, he goes into the preachmobile mode where he starts posting like he's some kind of divinely inspired person making prophecies. Which until proven otherwise, I'd say he's not.

You'd think it was some kind of affliction or something. Temporary insanity anyone?
Yeah I still want to yell troll … I just wish he was better at it Jesussaves was great (like landover)

for the purposes of getting back on the topic...

Now while I have not bothered to read this entire thread, mainly because I don't care enough, I don't believe what I say (or what anyone says) will change anyone's opinion.

With that said...

There is no reason why the bible is inerently false, or why evolution is inerently false as well. I thought that evolution had already been proven. But for the purposes of this arguement, lets say that it's just a theory. Now, this also applies to the Bible.

Now if you were to ask me, (putting string and M theory aside) the bible is true BUT incorrectly written. For instance, the global flood, for Noah it must have seemed global, even though, in fact it could have been local.

Now there is no reason why both evolution and the bible can't co-exist.

The only thing that contradicts this (in the bible) is the fact that the world was made in seven days. There are two possible answers for this, 1. These 'days' were incredible long (millions/ billions of years). 2. The cycle of life was shortened and made to move quickly.

In conclusion: BOTH WORK. and neither has been solely disprooven.

Let me post a few facts also that prove noah's arc could have held all of the animals ok.
Animal species.
Mammals 3,700
Birds 8,600
reptiles 6,300
amphibians 2,500
fishes 20,600
tunicates, etc 1,325
echinoderms 6,000
arthropods 838,000
mollusks 107,250
worms,etc 39,450
coelenterates, etc 5,380
sponges 4,800
protozoa 28,400
total 1,72,305
thats alot for one boat unless you realize this slight fact. Not all animals need be on the arc. The fishes, tunicates, echinoderms, mollucks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa, and many of the anthropods and worms would have been better staying in the ocean and the animals that did need to live on the ark were small. (give me a few to finish this i got to get off for a sec.)

If there had been a world wide flood, would not all the silt, sediment, etc.. in the water have killed of most of the fish? Actually would not 99% of all land now be heavily salted and infertile?

for the purposes of getting back on the topic...

There is no reason why the bible is inerently false, or why evolution is inerently false as well. I thought that evolution had already been proven. But for the purposes of this arguement, lets say that it's just a theory. Now, this also applies to the Bible.

[snip]

Now there is no reason why both evolution and the bible can't co-exist.

Although I agree that evolution and bible can co-exist, I would not put them on the same level.

Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven to be true, which is pretty difficult in science, anyway. However, it has not been disproven yet, and thus remains the most likely theory for the development of life on earth.

The bible is not a theory. It is a religious book, a book of faith. The bible exists, its existence does not need to be proven. The truth of the content is another matter. Ultimately it cannot be proven to be right, because that would mean there was proof of god. There is none and there doesn't need to be, because faith is belief in the absence of proof. Belief in the presence of proof is called knowledge.

As a christian I belief that the bible is generally true, but not in a literal sense. As a modern enlightened academic I know that evolution is the most plausible theory for the development if life.

Problems with this? I've got none! Neither do I have problems with people who can't belief in god. I do have a problem with people who say they believe, but are so insecure that they think everything that might threaten said belief (e.g. evolution) must be wrong.

...good point. Irrelevant, and definite proof of at least micro-evolution (though it'd be excellent if you could inform us what selective pressure had caused a reduction in man's immunity!),

Well, at one time humans without strong immunities died very young and were unable to produce offspring. It's believed that infant mortality was once as high as 70%. As medicine and sanitation has advanced, people with lower immunities are more likely to survive, and produce children with lower immunities.

Also, there is tons of evidence for evolution. So much so, in fact, that no serious scientists doubt it, even those that are religious. There is genuine disagreement about the mechanism of evolution, although natural selection is the strongest theory propounded so far.

The reason for the relatively small number of transitional species is the fact that speciation occurs in small populations in geologically short periods of time. An infinitesimal percentage of the world's species become fossilized

Although I agree that evolution and bible can co-exist, I would not put them on the same level.

Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven to be true, which is pretty difficult in science, anyway. However, it has not been disproven yet, and thus remains the most likely theory for the development of life on earth.

The bible is not a theory. It is a religious book, a book of faith. The bible exists, its existence does not need to be proven. The truth of the content is another matter. Ultimately it cannot be proven to be right, because that would mean there was proof of god. There is none and there doesn't need to be, because faith is belief in the absence of proof. Belief in the presence of proof is called knowledge.

As a christian I belief that the bible is generally true, but not in a literal sense. As a modern enlightened academic I know that evolution is the most plausible theory for the development if life.

Problems with this? I've got none! Neither do I have problems with people who can't belief in god. I do have a problem with people who say they believe, but are so insecure that they think everything that might threaten said belief (e.g. evolution) must be wrong.
Evolution is a "theory" in the sense that gravity is a "theory". Natural selection is simply the most commonly accepted version of the mechanism of evolution.

Also, there is tons of evidence for evolution. So much so, in fact, that no serious scientists doubt it, even those that are religious. There is genuine disagreement about the mechanism of evolution, although natural selection is the strongest theory propounded so far.

Heh, i agree there. But, tell that to a genuine Creationist, he won't listen...

The reason for the relatively small number of transitional species is the fact that speciation occurs in small populations in geologically short periods of time. An infinitesimal percentage of the world's species become fossilized

Well, actually, we know quite a number of of 'transitional' species. However, yeah, the taphonomic filter clears out a lot.

Bumping this, in the hopes that NR will explain why she thinks that Archaeopteryx is a hoax.

Bumping this, in the hopes that NR will explain why she thinks that Archaeopteryx is a hoax.

She does???
Oh, well, in that case I don't believe the bible exists. It's all a great big hoax, a bankrupt publishing house was just trying to make some bucks and invented it all...

i do not have pride i have truth. I tell people i am forgiven which is truth not pride

No, that is not true. You are forgiven, but you are not sinless. Sola Fide is not accurate; simply accepting Jesus doesn't make you irrevocably saved, and there is no Biblical justification for it. As long as you are human, you will sin and can be forgiven, but you are not sinless.

Bumping this, in the hopes that NR will explain why she thinks that Archaeopteryx is a hoax.

Well, i've seen one specimen of Archaeopteryx in real life (the Eicksteatt specimen), and i'm pretty sure it's no hoax.

No, that is not true. You are forgiven, but you are not sinless. Sola Fide is not accurate; simply accepting Jesus doesn't make you irrevocably saved, and there is no Biblical justification for it. As long as you are human, you will sin and can be forgiven, but you are not sinless.
so we sin because we are humans? I mean, just by the act of being a human makes us sin? Sounds pretty stupid to me. Good thing I don't follow religion.

While I'm thinking about it, has anyone seen the movie "Seven"?

so we sin because we are humans? I mean, just by the act of being a human makes us sin? Sounds pretty stupid to me. Good thing I don't follow religion.

While I'm thinking about it, has anyone seen the movie "Seven"?

No, that would be original sin (which I personally find groundless and illogical). Rather, humans sin because we have free will; we aren't intrinsically evil but rather able to commit evil.

Some of it. Seven was a pretty strange movie, to say the least.

Well, i've seen one specimen of Archaeopteryx in real life (the Eicksteatt specimen), and i'm pretty sure it's no hoax.
More than me. I've only seen pictures. And only two of them. (The original specimen, and one with the barely visible feathers. JR-something or another. Both the slabs and counterslabs.)

Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war

Hipocrite, how can a blind man lead the blind? For he shall surely fall. But those who are in the Lord are not blind but see

Anyone else find this funny in a sad sort of way?

Ffc2, you asked for civil and serious responses addressing your points. You received civil and serious responses addressing your points. You ignored them and instead insulted people who've responded by calling them hypocrites who've been "blinded by false teachings." Who's really the hypocrite here?

I kinda figured that was the point, but the way illustrated it was the way it was made sound by whomever I quoted

Some of it. Seven was a pretty strange movie, to say the least.
If you've seen the end you should know that I understood what you meant. If you request I'll do a spoiler post to explain farther

First of all: Stop attacking someone who is just trying to state a point. though maybe he/she is in a little too far over his/her head.

-There HAS been evidence of a great flood (no proof of it being world wide though)
-Scientists found proof of John the baptist's existence in a cave
-It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it
-If there is no God, where did the universe come from? How could you believe in something just appearing in existence if it doesn't at least have devine powers

I do believe it IS possible for evolution to be true, but if it is God did cause it.

If you've seen the end you should know that I understood what you meant. If you request I'll do a spoiler post to explain farther

Sorry about the delay. I'd like you to post a spoiler, since I couldn't see the end of the movie.

I say unto you, Just as the days of lot people were comiting adultery and worshiping idols before God brought judgement just as he will strike his rage against all on the day to which has been chosen before the fundations of the world.

Just curious -- but what does this have to do with your claims -- other than ignoring requests for proof?

-It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it

IT'S A CONSPIIIIRACY! AN EVIL EVULTUTONIST AND ATHISEST CONSPRIACY!

IT'S A CONSPIIIIRACY! AN EVIL EVULTUTONIST AND ATHISEST CONSPRIACY!

:rolleyes: Quick pass out the tinfoil hats so they can't read our minds with their space stations. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Quick pass out the tinfoil hats so they can't read our minds with their space stations. :rolleyes:

No, space stations are used by Major League Baseball to spy on us. ;)

First of all: Stop attacking someone who is just trying to state a point. though maybe he/she is in a little too far over his/her head.

Asking for sources is attacking him? If you dig into past threads, you will quickly see that this is the way ffc2 posts: makes a statement, states there is proof for his position, refuses absolutely to provide any proof, then makes vague prophecies, damning anyone who questions him.

-There HAS been evidence of a great flood (no proof of it being world wide though)

I am willing to believe there may have been some flood, as it appears in a great many creation myths, OR that it is an archetype symbolizing birth, rebirth and purification.

-Scientists found proof of John the baptist's existence in a cave Which scientists, and where? I'd be interested in finding out more.

-It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it To what end? Why would this benefit anyone? And why would large groups of people expose themselves to the possibility of being revealed as charlatans -- thus losing the respect of their community? Or do you believe that all science is a sham?

-If there is no God, where did the universe come from? How could you believe in something just appearing in existence if it doesn't at least have devine powers Why do you believe that questioning someone about the proof they have dangled in front of you but subsequently refuse to provide = not believing in God? I am a devout Christian, but I still would like to see what proof ffc2 has to back up his claims.

I do believe it IS possible for evolution to be true, but if it is God did cause it.

Those who don't believe in God will say that simply because we don't know how and why it started does not mean God started it.

My personal belief is that God set the whole thing in motion, but that once He did, He employed a hands-off approach. Thus, animals evolved to perfectly fit the niches in their environments, humans developed different racial characteristics to better cope with their environments (for example, the epicanthic folds the Inuit developed to shield their eyes from snow blindness, the deeper pigmentation of peoples who live closer to the equator) and the extinctions which have ended less able species and mutations which have strengthened others were not directed by God but allowed to unfold naturally -- just as Adam and Eve were allowed to choose their path.

Sorry about the delay. I'd like you to post a spoiler, since I couldn't see the end of the movie.
The last two sins are Wrath and Envy. What he does is he turns himself in to the police, under the condition that Brad Pitt and the Other guy take him to find the last two bodies. When they get there they wait in a deserted area, and a delivery truck comes up, A package is dropped of, and it's Pitt's wifes head, Which the second guy opened. The killer is telling Brad that he went to see Brad's wife before he turned himself in. And he is explaining how much he envy's Brad because he as able to lead a happy life. Brad Killed him, hence Envy was written off of the list, and Brad went to jail, didn't sorry to cut it short , I jsut had something happen

-It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it

Well, i wouldn't say that. It would be far more difficult than you might think... stuff like bone microstructure etc.

The only serious fake case ever was probably the infamous Piltdown man, though. Oh btw, Creationists have been faking fossils as well...

Evolution is a "theory" in the sense that gravity is a "theory". Natural selection is simply the most commonly accepted version of the mechanism of evolution.
No idea what you're on about. Gravity is not a theory in the true sense of the word. But every serious scientiest will tell you that evolution is a theorie. This theory hasn't been discredited yet, but it is still a theory.
I wasn't even talking about natural selection, so again, don't really know what you're saying.

It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it
First law of conspiracy theorie: The more people are needed for a conspiracy (or would at least have some knowledge of it) the less likely the CT is.
Second law: Cui bono? Who benefits of the conspiracy and why?

Just applying those two CT laws to your statement shows that it is very unlikely that there is a FFC (Fake Fossile COnspiracy) out there!

No idea what you're on about. Gravity is not a theory in the true sense of the word. But every serious scientiest will tell you that evolution is a theorie. This theory hasn't been discredited yet, but it is still a theory.
I wasn't even talking about natural selection, so again, don't really know what you're saying.

Every serious scientist will also tell you that gravity is a theory. This theory hasn't been discredited yet, but it is still a theory.

Every serious scientist will also tell you that gravity is a theory. This theory hasn't been discredited yet, but it is still a theory.
Hm, I was under the impression that gravity has the status of a scientific law. For the time being (until I ask a science guy) I stand corrected.

"Daddy, what is a plane?"
"Son, a plane is thousands of pieces of metal and plastic lifting off at the same time hoping gravity won't notice."

Hm, I was under the impression that gravity has the status of a scientific law. For the time being (until I ask a science guy) I stand corrected.



Does a science girl count? I think I can probably qualify as one of those.

And technically, yes, the Universal Theory of Gravity, though frequently called the Law of Gravity, is exactly what its name suggests. Keep in mind that a "theory" in science means something different that in common parlance. Essentially, calling it a theory means "we can't actually prove that every little detail is 100% right, but we can pretty safely say that the general idea is spot-on." (A law, on the other hand, basically means "a theory with an equation attached to it.") Neither evolution nor gravity are perfectly understood concepts, but the odds of us being totally wrong about either are pretty low. :)

As i have said it shall surely come to pass

"10. The Earth quakes and the heavens rattle; the beasts of nature flock together and the nations of men flock apart; volcanoes usher up heat while elsewhere water becomes ice and melts; and then on other days it just rains. 11. Indeed do many things come to pass."
HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19

:p




I'm the one who's suposed to be saying ridiculous things here!

-If there is no God, where did the universe come from?

If there is a god (or several) where did it (or they) come from? Neither question has an answer. Ok, so the universe came from the Big Bang, I have yet to meet someone who can explain where the Big Bang came from . . .

Does a science girl count? I think I can probably qualify as one of those.

And technically, yes, the Universal Theory of Gravity, though frequently called the Law of Gravity, is exactly what its name suggests. Keep in mind that a "theory" in science means something different that in common parlance. Essentially, calling it a theory means "we can't actually prove that every little detail is 100% right, but we can pretty safely say that the general idea is spot-on." (A law, on the other hand, basically means "a theory with an equation attached to it.") Neither evolution nor gravity are perfectly understood concepts, but the odds of us being totally wrong about either are pretty low. :)
Hello science girl, of course you count. Although I like to check with sources I know and trust, your answer makes me think that you knopw what your talking about. I stand corrected with regards to the theorie of gravity - another spot of misinformation cleared up :)

As to the theory thing in itself, I know what a scientific theory is - as opposed to quite a lot of people in this forum ;) Don't worry, you won't be finding me looking for loop holes in the theory of evolution.

Hello science girl, of course you count. Although I like to check with sources I know and trust, your answer makes me think that you knopw what your talking about. I stand corrected with regards to the theorie of gravity - another spot of misinformation cleared up :)

As to the theory thing in itself, I know what a scientific theory is - as opposed to quite a lot of people in this forum ;) Don't worry, you won't be finding me looking for loop holes in the theory of evolution.

Hooray for people who actually know what a theory is! You get a cookie - or maybe a website poking fun at people who don't.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

:)

First of all: Stop attacking someone who is just trying to state a point. though maybe he/she is in a little too far over his/her head.

-There HAS been evidence of a great flood (no proof of it being world wide though)
-Scientists found proof of John the baptist's existence in a cave
-It would be easy to fake some "missing link" fossils, especially if a lot of people are in on it
-If there is no God, where did the universe come from? How could you believe in something just appearing in existence if it doesn't at least have devine powers

I do believe it IS possible for evolution to be true, but if it is God did cause it.

And this is where you provide your sources... :)

I say unto you, Just as the days of lot people were comiting adultery and worshiping idols before God brought judgement just as he will strike his rage against all on the day to which has been chosen before the fundations of the world.

How is it that Mods jump all over a perceived flame, and yet this 'fellow' is allowed to start threads, apparently PURELY for this kind of flame-baiting???

Who does this double-standard protect?

How is it that Mods jump all over a perceived flame, and yet this 'fellow' is allowed to start threads, apparently PURELY for this kind of flame-baiting???

Who does this double-standard protect?
The problem is he apparently believes this tripe … the rules make mention of intentionally inflammatory statements … we just cant determine if it is apparently intentional or just someone speaking their mind.

Anyone else find this funny in a sad sort of way?

Ffc2, you asked for civil and serious responses addressing your points. You received civil and serious responses addressing your points. You ignored them and instead insulted people who've responded by calling them hypocrites who've been "blinded by false teachings." Who's really the hypocrite here?

Yeah I was wondering what happened to this thread.. I sorta forgot about it.. I'm not surprised because he got surrounded by evidence contradicting his claims.

Then explain how Chinese written history extends past the age of the "Young Earth" ?



Just so you know this is not a attempt to start a flame war i just have a few statements and question so please if you are not going to be serious do not reply at all.
I agree with all of you in evolutionist's evidence is evidence.
So i come to this conclusion, did you know that there have been 25,000 archaeological digs that had unearthed evidence confirming the evidence of the Bible? And there has never been one single artifact contradicting any Biblical reference? Please also allow me to point out that every proof of evolution, the so called missing links, have turned out to be etheir fraudulent, misidentified, or simply a case of wishful thinking. Even evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, former head of the British Museum of Natural History, has admitted there is not one single transitional fossil in existence anywhere that could be used to prove the theory of evolution?
Again i would like these questions awnsered and please do not insult me or the questions and if you are not intending on awnsering then please do not reply only serious awnsers are welcome.

The problem is he apparently believes this tripe … the rules make mention of intentionally inflammatory statements … we just cant determine if it is apparently intentional or just someone speaking their mind.

So - starting a thread about the historical validity and then turning it into a preach-fest? Nothing to do with the original material... just denigration of the 'sinner' and self-validation for the religious?

Sounds like SPAM at best, and flamebait at worst.

I think the fundie just snapped. Realizing that he wasn't just flat-out wrong, but that a belief in a creator is not more an explanation that Big Bang or M Theory is.
Bear with him mate. I bet it's hard when one's world is shattered ;)

I think the fundie just snapped. Realizing that he wasn't just flat-out wrong, but that a belief in a creator is not more an explanation that Big Bang or M Theory is.
Bear with him mate. I bet it's hard when one's world is shattered ;)

If that's the case, then he must have a thousand or so shattered worlds already given his track record. I suspect he uses the preachmobile mode the same way fighter craft use chaff and flares. Hee hee, I can see it now.

Ffc2: Back! Back! Away from me ye arguments of logic and proof! For I have faith!

=p