Morning everyone. xdorkx, I won't have time to do that list one by one today, sorry man. Why don't you just pick your favorite and we can take them one at a time...?

Wow, harsh. Well ask me something and let's see if I will have an answer for you without dave's help.

Thanks for the support krusty. I also consider you are a bright guy.

 

roaches are perfect the way they are. As of right now, there is absolutely no reason for them to evolve. They multiply in greater numbers by the day. There are different variations of roaches though, each tuned to their enviroment. By the way, everytime a roach dies (be it squished or eaten etc), it emits an odor detectable by other roaches, and that oder lets other roaches know to stay clear so as not to fall victim to a predator. Its their way of keeping the species alive. Sacrificing 1 roach out of a trillion is acceptable to their species survival.

As for ants, why is bigger better? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Were ants the size of dogs, and in the numbers they are in now, they would literally barren all of the land on earth looking for food. Their size is key to their survival. 100 trillion dog sized ants could not survive on earth.

Pretty much every creature is still susceptible to evolution, and probably does so. Humans are evolving. Our pinky toes are getting smaller and smaller, to the point that yes, they will disappear. We have organs, such as the appendix, that are no longer is use, so why do we have them? Our ancestors 100.000 years ago lived in enviroments where they DID eat some poisonous foods, and the appendix had to sort out the poison before it killed us.

Biological entities have a memory. Thats why when you cut yourself, or scrape your knee, a scab forms, and then new skin grows back to the same way it was before. It doesnt grow more and stop, it doesnt grow not enough and leave a hole, it grows exactly what you lost. Scarring occurs when you have an overactive immune system (which happens most frequently in children)

Evolution is the same way, it has a biological base and a memory. So yes, if you and all of your children, and their children, and their kids, and their kids and etc had to live in an enviroment for thousands of years where it was necessary to spend large amounts of your time underwater, your body would develop something to help you.
Why? Well over the generations your genetics have noticed that their is a lot of O2 deprivation and that it needs to stop since its key for survival of the species. So it develops something like webbed hands/feet so u are more efficient. Thats how it is. We can see it happening today.

It is in human DNA to have 6 fingers on each hand, but we have evolved past that point and now only have 5 fingers per hand. Eventually we will only have 4 toes per foot.

BTW, there is a shark that was in captivity that just had an asexual birth. Sharks are vertebrae animals like humans. The female DNA split itself without male DNA and made another of its own species. its called parthenogenesis.

The sharks body needed to reproduce because there were no male sharks in captivity, so in a desperate attempt to save the species, it had its own child. That is evolution and survival at work. Now whose to say that has never happened with a human being? Sound like a familiar story, a freak biological accident where a virgin mysteriously became pregnant and had a child?
welll yeah it sounds like the virgin mary story, but i personally believe she made the whole thing up and was sleeping around or was raped and didnt want to shame her family.

 

Ok... Anybody who says that our bodies are so perfect they must have been "designed" must not be living on the same plane of existence as I am. Let me fill you in... Disease , hunger, old age... So either there was no deigner or the designer was INCREDIBLY incompetent, take your pick.

 

I just love the title... Already said wrong. "The Bible proves science" would have been a more coherent title.

That is an incredibly assumptive and incorrect statement. (see dave's constant reposting of the flood, creation of animals in sequence, generations after adam, etc.)
And what about the hundreds of modern scientific facts that contradict the bible's supposed accuracy?
Irrelevant attempt to distract from the topic. This isn't about the Vedas, this is about the bible. Stay on topic.
False statement. Dave's comments: flood, generations, species creation, etc. All it takes is ONE scientific error for that statement to be wholly false.
If the bible came from a mind much greater than man's why were we able to figure out said scientific theories without the bible? The former statement I'll most likely get to in the individual statements below.
Stay on topic. Bible, not other books.
Inference. You assume "nothing" means space. Space is not "nothing." Gravitational forces are not "nothing." And would you mind elaborating on who these "experts" exactly are? Religious experts? Roman scientists? Indian mystics?
Hahaha, you're serious? Um, dude, mankind has known the world is light and dark since civilization has begun. If you travel, migrate, or trade with other distant civilizations you WILL notice this fact. It doesn't take the word of god to tell us this.
No idea what the hell this has to do with anything...
Actually clouds are water vapor and they float at relative levels due to evaporation, vapor pressures, density, and molecular makeup. Not to mention that questioning someone if they know the "balancing of the clouds" does not equate to proof of knowledge of the physics of clouds.
(groan) Seriously... dude... Inference of "host of heaven" to equal "stars." Ptolemy could only see 1056 stars in his view with his current gear. There are more stars than even we can see now. This does not mean that there are an infinite amount of stars. This does not mean that the bible is scientifically valid.
Saying the phrase, "how high they are," does not tell you how far away stars are. There is no proof and no science here. If the bible stated alpha centauri is 4.35 light years away you'd have an argument. But it doesn't, so you don't.
Any civilization that has constellations can see that the star cluster hasn't moved over several generations and can infer that they won't in the future. Read up on the aztec's calendar and star charts. I'm far more impressed with that civilization's scientific accomplishments than some random vague bible quotes.
They are observable to the naked eye.
Illogical leap in judgment. Even if this couldn't be observed by the naked eye, leaping to evidence of an omnipotent divine creator is unsound. A more plausible explanation would be the use of a lensing apparatus by the author.
If you can see the bands, you can see them being "loosed." Again, asking a question does not equate knowledge of the subject.
Leap in judgment again. Man has been observing the stars since prehistoric eras. You'd be surprised how observant ancient cultures were. This does not mean a divine creator exists or that he/it authored any literature.
Anyone that has taken high school geometry knows that a circle is not a sphere. You cannot dispute this. In science we say what we mean. One word has no hidden meanings. It is not sometimes a circle (as in a circle) and sometimes a circle (as in a sphere). A circle is a circle is a circle. A day is a day, not an aeon or any other fragment of time. And for the record a "circle of the earth" can be a hill, island, or patch of grass. To infer that it is the Earth itself is a stretch. And "setting a compass upon the face of the depth" can also be inferred to mean putting a lid on something. Hardly scientific biblical proof that the earth is a sphere.
Illogical leap. The author probably heard it from travels abroad (since several non-Augustinian cultures knew the world was a sphere).
The passage does not say that no two snow crystals are the same. Leap in logic. Asking questions does not equate scientific knowledge. The "treasures of the snow" could mean almost anything from water to things frozen in glaciers, to the beauty of icicles, to cooling beverages, to preventing things from rotting quickly.
Nice try but you screwed up a little. All mitochondria are inherited from your mother. If all human life came from one woman than everyone's mitochondria should be more or less identical. This is not found to be true. Mitochondria are most likely the result of a symbiotic relationship between a phagocyte or a eukaryote and a prokaryote that occurred billions upon billions of years ago. This is however your strongest, and only remotely close evidence. On the other side, anyone that observes their own tribe of people knows that when a new tribe starts off with one man and one woman that all offspring will eventually come to be "from one woman." So it really isn't that much of a scientific proof of god's omnipotence or the bible's newfound science. Sociological and biological observation has been around since prehistoric times.
The life of the flesh is in the blood because when you get cut and you bleed too much you DIE. Even animals understand this concept. This is no newfound science given by god through the bible.
Anyone handling meat knows to cook it properly. Pork parasites may have just been more resilient to heat shock. Cavemen realized cooking meat over fire makes you not die after eating. This is no new science from god.
Illogical leap.
Leprosy was known to be highly contagious before the bible was written. It doesn't take god or a genius to figure it out. It's natural instinct. Even animals shun the diseased of the flock. Gee, Bob's falling apart. Everyone that hangs out with Bob starts falling apart too. I don't think I'm going to hang out with Bob. Der.
Which civilizations are we talking about?
Yup, that's right, at least 1900 years before jesus even existed. When was deuteronomy supposedly written?
Firstly, the sun isn't what kills the bacteria, its the osmotic pressure. When the water is evaporated the bacteria will try out. This can kill some bacteria. Some just go dormant until they contact water again. By the way, you have no quote from the bible for this. So until I get one I'm refraining from answering it further.
Questions do not equate knowledge. The "fountains of the deep" are more likely referring to natural springs or geysers, not volcanoes. Volcanoes don't create water, they produce molten rock. Try reading a geology book sometime...
What does it mean that the sea is not full? Does it have a jar that it's in? Most rivers are actually replenished by snow caps from mountains, not rain. Floods occur from rains away from the mountains. Again, the passage is vague and does not describe it as you do.
Questions do not equate to knowledge or answers. The passage does not describe the scientific processes involved.
Anyone looking at a tank of water or picking up a piece of glass can see light scattering effects. This does not prove god wrote the bible or is omnipotent.
Anyone watching dust devils in the desert or fog rolling or flags in various lands can see this effect. It doesn't take the word of god to give us grand new insight.
A longer bible quote might have proven more effective. It does not say water is 13 times lighter than mercury. So far it tells nothing. It is a fragment sentence at best.
The polynesians and "primitive" cultures have charted the ocean currents before the bible was written. The bible is no new insight to this concept.
The bible does not describe these or any other scientific processes. Questions do not equate knowledge.
This says absolutely nothing about thermodynamics or energy in general. It says god stopped what he was doing, nothing more.
First off your definition is wrong.
Entropy is not always disorder. Entropy drives the universe to equalization of temperature, pressure, and particle dispersal. Some aspects of entropy drive towards more order (clathrin cages).
Um... yeah I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. I don't see anything in there about heat death or Jesus making a new universe at the 1999 Y2K bash. (by the way, I think he missed your deadline. )
How this in any way relates to god giving us scientific knowledge before we were able to figure it out is beyond me. On a side note, the while might not have actually swallowed the man right away. The man might have latched onto something near the blowhole. Whales breathe as well. So oxygen wouldn't probably be an issue. However, if the man was swallowed right away, I guarantee he wouldn't last three days. Do you know how strong stomach acids are? On that third day, if he even had skin anymore I'd be shocked as hell.
And I have shown that the science was already known, if not by the culture the bible was given to, it was known by other cultures. Avoids scientific nonsense huh?... You mean like pigeons before roaches, or a flying spaghetti monster? The argument may warrant your complete confidence in the bible, but I'm too intelligent and logical for that.

 

We're also assuming circle doesn't mean hot dog and god doesn't mean telephone. Your analogy is inaccurate and irrelevant.

 

Bravo skeorx. xdorkx, I'm still more than willing to cover each one in depth with you if you want to pick one.

 

Show me please, list all you can, but i'd like to see just ONE, i'm waiting...

 

So is yours. (I know, I know you are, but what am I...)

Lets play a game. (I know it will be hard for you evolutionists, but please, do it for me, I stood up for a lot of you guys, give me some credit.)

If the Atmosphere was created a lot more recently than science believes, if there was a flood that covered the earth, couldn't that make carbon dating innacurate? Dosen't carbon dating measure one element against another element? When that animal/bacteria dies, dosen't it stop absorbing the other element? Its c12 or c14 or something like that right?

 

Wow, looks like they were already all covered, lol, thats WAYYYY too much for me to respond to at work, lol

 

Krusty, carbon dating is not a technique that I am well learned in. Sorry. I'm going to have to leave that one for someone else.

In the meantime you are welcome to comment on my statement about 5 posts above yours.

 

Ok this is probably the 50th time I've tried to correct you guys on your asinine concepts of evolution.

Sense of taste developed from a genetic mutation that occurred most likely through errors in reproduction of DNA in mitosis. A gene becomes modified that effects the surface of skin cells. Lets say a pressure sensing protein on the cells phospholipid bilayer is modified because of the mutation which creates a binding sight for various chemicals. The chemical in the mouth of the creature binds to the site causing a cascade effect and sending an impulse to the creature's brain. It says good or bad. If it says good but actually is bad, the creature dies and the mutation doesn't propagate. If the brain says good and it is good, the creature will be more inclined to eat things that are good for it and spit out those that are bad for it. The creature will breed and propagate the mutation. Other mutations can occur modifying the site further. Beneficial mutations will be propagated further (since the creature is better adapted) and the primitive mutations will die out. Same with scent and sight. We see in color because a mutation occurred in our retinas that changed the chemical receptor pigments. This allowed the mutated organism to discriminate between brightly colored objects (berries and fruits) and the normal vegetative background. We were able to better locate food supplies and thus lived longer and therefore were able to breed more and propagate the mutation.

ONE mutation occurs. Then another. Then another. Over HUGE periods of time. One doesn't go from "goo" to a monkey to a man. And yes, we DO need to smell different things. You know why you hate the smell of feces and decaying matter? Because it is contagious and dangerous. We had a mutation that occurred a long long long time ago that said, when you smell this, stay away. Those that stayed away got less infections and lived longer. They were able to breed more and propagated the species while those that didn't have the mutation kept handing the infectious material and died from it.

Dreaming allows us to relax and dump our emotional problems and helps to regulate our neurological functions more efficiently. When you have REM sleep your body is more refreshed than without REM sleep. If you don't have REM sleep you will acquire schizophrenic tendencies. This has been scientifically tested and validated. You NEED REM sleep or you will go insane.

There are so many variations because organisms have exponential growth rates. One bacteria makes two. Those two make two each (4). Those four make two each (8). so forth and so forth. Each organism is capable of mutating each time that it breeds or divides. Now take that aspect and spread it over BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years. It isn't that hard to grasp.

 

im having a hard time with this question. are you asking if there was a great flood is it possible that ALL carbon dating is incorrect?

 

xdorkx, I understand you are busy. Want to take them one at a time? If so...

The earth hangs upon "nothing"? as was pointed out, the gravitational pull of the sun is not "nothing". So if we take the bible for what it actually says it could not be more innacurate. So go ahead and find a dictionary where "nothing" is defined as "gravitational force of the sun". I'll wait...

 

False concepts of evolution being propagated by ignorant religious figures is why it seems like such a stretch. "Goo" didn't turn into animals with fully developed brains and circulatory systems. RNA (some of which is self assembling) is formed by amino acids. The amino acids are formed by simple organic compounds (known to have existed on early earth) and electrical current. Phospholipids also self assemble as well (into micelles - small balled structures, and bilayers). Either the RNA assembled first and then was engulfed by a self assembling phospholipid layer or the phospholipid ball formed around amino acids which drove the RNA to assembly. This is the first simple celled organism.

"Goo" turns into a very very very primitive single celled organism. That organism slowly (over thousands or millions of years) becomes more and more complicated (surface structures, pores, ion channels, cytoskeleton, and eventually organelles). Some eventually mutate to utilize heavy metals to utilize sunlight to create ATP (photosynthesis). These are the first primitive plants. Those plants eventually evolve into more complex plants. Those more complex plants mutate to be even more complex and so forth. Those that don't photosynthesize mutate towards less rigid structures (planarians, jellyfish, worm-like creatures, etc.) Some grow cartilage or bony structures. etc. etc. etc.

"Goo" doesn't magically turn into a monkey. Goo -> simple cells -> complex cells -> multicellular organisms -> plants and animals. Over BILLIONS of years.

 

It hangs on nothing, meaning vastness, space, etc....i'm sure you can see the concept of that...they didnt know the term 'space' or 'universe' back them...to them it was a vast dark thing, aka nothing...sorry for the lack of big words there, I just feel that one's easy to explain. :-)

 

First of all, yes I'd like to see the scientific data on that experiment. Secondly, carbon dating isn't used to tell you dates accurate to the exact year or age of a creature. It is used to find the relative time frame (within a few thousand years or so). For forensics, this is a horrible procedure to use. For things that are at least 100,000 years old, this is a good estimate. Stop taking things out of context.

 

That is just not true though! The earth hangs on gravitational pull from the sun. To say "he hangs the earth on nothing" is to say that the earth is just sitting there in nothingness right? Well that is wrong. To me this statement shows the scientific innacuracy of the bible not the other way around.

 

I find it interesting that you deny evolution because of an inaccurate knowledge of it, and yet you describe it as the EXACT way the bible states the earth and life was created. God took 7 days and BAM there it is.

 

Have you ever actually encountered a roach before? They are practically the pinnacle of evolution. They can survive for days without eating... or without their HEADS. They can compress their bodies to fit in crevices smaller than your finger nail. Have you ever tried to kill one by stomping on it? It takes forever unless you have a spiked or sharpened edge. And even then they still wriggle away. They are almost immune to radiation poisoning. They can eat damn near anything and can live damn near anywhere. Developing larger exoskeletons would limit them to where they can live and expose them to more predators. They also don't have lungs, they use diffusion to get their oxygen. With the low levels that occur in our age, if they were larger they would not be able to effectively supply their cells with oxygen. When humanity destroys this planet, the cockroaches will still be here thriving.

 

Actually, new research has shown that our appendix might not be as vestigial as we originally assumed. I believe they were saying that it has more of a role in our bodies when we are young and that as we age, we need it less or not at all.