man this site is too slow, i'm going to clubxb for a while, i'll check SL again tomorrow, PEACE! (hits post reply, and waits 10 mins for the message to post)

 

I wouldn't call that accurate science. I would call that two scientists having fun and trying to imagine how the species would look. I don't see any definitive statement saying that this is how they all looked. I wouldn't buy that anyways. If they had some ribs but not all, and had at least one of each bone from either side of the body and mirror imaged the missing ones I'd be fine with it. But I would agree with you that this is not an accurate depiction of the neanderthal man. It even says in the title "Frankenstein." This does not, however, show that neanderthals don't exist or that science is unfound.
That's not the issue. The issue is that you say the bible is scientific and give quotes that aren't scientific in any way, shape, or form. It produces questions and generalized vague statements. It does not explain or elaborate upon any scientific principles.
We really don't have to look hard for that. Christians don't even understand the "turn the other cheek" parable properly. The bible is vague and contradictory. You can believe whatever you want. Just don't ever try to pass off the bible as scientific fact or even a basis for morality. Because I assure you we will call you out on it.
Yes, we are stubborn. We refuse to allow people to slander scientific knowledge when they don't even have the proper understanding of science. Believing what someone tells me without explaining it or proving it, like religion, that is immature.
The only time you can mix and match bones is if you know without a doubt that they are the same species. Even then you could be mixing male and female bones (which is not good science) as well as mixing ill-proportioned body parts together (putting a short person's arms on a tall person's torso). I don't feel this is good science.
I don't need to imagine it. It happens. We have genetic lines that show it. Experiments on drosophilia, bacteria, pea plants, even our own family lines show undeniable evidence for the evolutionary process. If this wasn't true, the entire field of genetics would never have existed.

 

Didn't we go over that multiple times skeorx? Ive explained that multiple times.

Im not comdeming anyone. You aren't going to hell because you don't believe in God. I'm not going to hell because I don't believe in the trinity/hell. MAINSTREAM RELIGION MAKES UP THAT CRAP TO GET PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY DO/GIVE THEM MONEY.

Once again, my idea proved true. MOST people who are evolutionists look at Religion, and see the disqusting hypocracies, and say: "Look at that, there must be no god".

Why aren't there different stages of homo erectus? Or different stages of cromagnum man? Wouldn't they have to evolve from/into another species?

I have no problem with science. Its done tons of good for this world, much more than most religion. Its brought a cure to many hideious diseases, helped a lot of people live better, and found out a lot about the universe.

Mixing and matching bones is not Scientific.

Just because I don't believe in evolution dosen't make me "against science".

The meek will inherit the earth. Not the demeaning people.

 

How is the bible contradictory? If you say anything about science, I'm not going to pay attention. Post scriptures that contradict another scripture.

Put Up or Shut Up.

 

ooo.ooo, let me do it.

from: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#good_to_all

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


and the list goes on...http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#good_to_all

please click and read.

 

Ok, I go through these later, but a quoting website called infidels.org, really makes you look intelligent.

 

They are direct bible quotes... who cares what website they are from? There is no human interpretation, just exactly what the bible says. You are in a mood today...

 

just did a search online at this new place called google, I just posted up the first link.

before you ask a question like that, it's easy to do a google search for "contradictory verses bible". if none come up, you're in the clear. If 305,000 hits come up, you may be wrong.

 

Unlike that answersingenesis.com BS from xdorkx. I was laughing so hard...

"and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground," Genesis 2:5 This cleary shows a vast knowledge of the molecular make up of water unknown to the peoples of the time. Many experts of the day believed that plants grew best when covered in blood but the bible revealed that water was best. Why? God told them.

 

my question for seatlledave is..
have you seen that episode where the soda machine falls on captain murphy and a scorpion keeps stinging him , my fav by far.

 

muwahahahaha. now thats funny.

 

The whole carbon dating issue really bugs me.

It is not meant to be used for forensic science. It is not meant to be used on live animals. It is meant to give a general timeline of when something was alive a very very long time ago.

If an animal was alive 1 million years ago, i dont think anyone really cares whether the dating is 1000, or 2000, or even 10000 years off in either direction. Saying something was alive roughly 1 million years ago automatically negates the bible.

Even if its slighlty innacurate, that slight innacuracy is more than overwhelming enough to say, "ok, the bible is really really really off and wrong with its timing. maybe we should say its wrong about this one.

and sorry i havent been around much, the scionlife server must be weird or something because ive not been able to access the site very easily from anywhere. its really rough

 

ONLY ONE WAY TO SETTLE THIS

http://www.adultswim.com/games/biblefight/

 

Some “contradictions” arise when we have two or more accounts of the same incident. For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?

4 The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.

5 To illustrate this, at 2 Chronicles 3:1, we read: “Finally Solomon started to build the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem.” Later, we read: “Thus Solomon finished the house of Jehovah.” (2 Chronicles 7:11) Did Solomon personally build the temple from start to finish? Of course not. The actual building work was done by a multitude of craftsmen and laborers. But Solomon was the organizer of the work, the one responsible. Hence, the Bible says that he built the house. In the same way, Matthew’s Gospel tells us that the military commander approached Jesus. But Luke gives the added detail that he approached him through the Jewish elders.

6 Here is a similar example. At Matthew 20:20, 21, we read: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee approached [Jesus] with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.” What she asked was that her sons should have the most favored position when Jesus came into his Kingdom. In Mark’s account of this same event, we read: “James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, stepped up to [Jesus] and said to him: ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.’” (Mark 10:35-37) Was it the two sons of Zebedee, or was it their mother, who made the request of Jesus?

7 Clearly, it was the two sons of Zebedee who made the request, as Mark states. But they made it through their mother. She was their spokesperson. This is supported by Matthew’s report that when the other apostles heard what the mother of the sons of Zebedee had done, they became indignant, not at the mother, but “at the two brothers.”—Matthew 20:24.

8 Have you ever heard two people describe an event that they both witnessed? If so, did you notice that each person emphasized details that impressed him? One may have left out things that the other included. Both, however, were telling the truth. It is the same with the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, as well as with other historical events reported by more than one Bible writer. Each writer wrote accurate information even when one retained details that another omitted. By considering all the accounts, a fuller understanding of what happened can be gained. Such variations prove that the Bible accounts are independent. And their essential harmony proves that they are true.

 

Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.

18 The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

 

(Before I Begin, I would like to say this is a LONG post, while SL was down, I opened up Word and put together some ideas, and started backing it up with Quotes from Scientists. Now, these are the Scientists who are quoted beliefs, I Bolded some of it, and Italized the really good quotes. PLEASE take the time to read it, at least 35% of it, is quotes. Please.)

Ok, I’m may be leaving this discussion, because it’s getting pointless. It’s a point-counterpoint kind of situation that goes around in endless circles. I’m mocked because I don’t believe that mixing and matching bones from different areas, makes a skeleton.

If you went to a graveyard and dug up 20 bodies, and mixed up the bones, did you form new life? No, you just mixed and matched bones. Is that scientific? No.

Look at Eskimos, what protects them from the cold? Specialized clothing and housing. Is their metabolism higher to help protect them from the cold? Yes, but if you take an Eskimo off their high protein diet, their metabolism drops to normal levels in days. So that’s not evolution/adaptation.

Or black people? Do they have better cooling systems in the heat? No. The only “advantage” they have is a slightly higher resistance from skin cancer. Other than that and not really getting sun burnt, do they have any other advantage? No.

You guys make it seem like ALL scientists believe in the same exact form of evolution, that they all agree on the same facts. Now for you viewing pleasure, Quotes from your distinguished religious members:

A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added.

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”

Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: “Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, “potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place.”

And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life
was not the result of an act of creation.”

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.

This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].” Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”14

Want more? Why not?

Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”—Italics added

Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”

However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”

Most science courses focus on the adaptation and survival of life-forms instead of on the more central question of the very origin of life. You may have noted that attempts to explain where life came from are usually presented in generalizations such as: ‘Over millions of years, molecules in collision somehow produced life.’ Yet, is that really satisfying? It would mean that in the presence of energy from the sun, lightning, or volcanoes, some lifeless matter moved, became organized, and eventually started living—all of this without directed assistance. What a huge leap that would have been! From nonliving matter to living! Could it have occurred that way?

Back in the middle Ages, accepting such a concept might not have seemed a problem because spontaneous generation—the notion that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter—was the prevailing belief. In the 17th century, Italian physician Francesco Redi proved that maggots appeared in rotten meat only after flies had laid eggs on it. No maggots developed on meat that flies could not reach. If animals as big as flies did not just appear on their own, what about the microbes that kept appearing in food—covered or not? Although later experiments indicated that microbes did not arise spontaneously, the issue remained controversial. Then came the work of Louis Pasteur.

Many people recall Pasteur’s work in solving problems related to fermentation and to infectious disease. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life-forms could arise by themselves. As you may have read, Pasteur demonstrated that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination. In 1864 he announced: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” That statement remains true. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.

Surely, with the millions of dollars of research money, Scientists should be able to turn non living matter into living matter right? Did that happen? No. If Scientists can’t get it to happen in PERFECT laboratory settings, I’m supposed to believe it happened by chance out in the open?

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

BTW, the number 10113 looks like this 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So there was a 1: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of that happening.

In any other situation, Scientists would say that what ever had odds that high, WOULD NEVER HAPPEN, But when it suites their desire, sure, it must of happened. We have proof. Don’t we?

And now Dave,

First, is not the idea of the whole earth’s being flooded too farfetched? Not really. Indeed, to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.

Further, The New Encyclopćdia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 meters (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 meters (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.” So, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: “Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.” Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.

What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.

Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: “They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor.”

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

An editorial in the magazine Biblical Archaeologist observed: “It is important to remember that the story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture . . . Nevertheless behind the oldest traditions found in Near Eastern sources, there may well be an actual flood of gigantic proportions dating from one of the pluvial periods . . . many thousands of years ago.”

The pluvial periods were times when the surface of the earth was much wetter than now. Freshwater lakes around the world were much larger. It is theorized that the wetness was caused by heavy rains associated with the end of the ice ages. But some have suggested that on one occasion the extreme wetness of the earth’s surface was a result of the Flood.

That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it. Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.

 

Read the context, read the scriptures around those, when you pick one scripure out by itself and not the ones around it, yeah, you could probably find some scriptures that look pretty questionable.

John 10:22-30

22 At that time the festival of dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was wintertime, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Sol′o·mon. 24 Therefore the Jews encircled him and began to say to him: “How long are you to keep our souls in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us outspokenly.” 25 Jesus answered them: “I told YOU, and yet YOU do not believe. The works that I am doing in the name of my Father, these bear witness about me. 26 But YOU do not believe, because YOU are none of my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will ****** them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can ****** them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”

He says Father a bunch of times. He also says "I and the Father are one". When you are married, you "become one" with your wife or husband. Its a figure of speech. God and Jesus coexisted for probably billlions of years before Jesus came to Earth, so yeah, Jesus was a PERFECT representation of God (Jehovah)

 

Hell is VERY real, quit telling them otherwise. jesus talked about HELL during his ministry on earth more than heaven, it's VERY real

 

A dance off?

 

Quit telling me what to say. God, this sounds like any arguement in Elementary School.

Ok God and Satan are like a good cop bad cop right? JESUS DID NOT SAY THAT WHEN YOU DIE, IF YOU SINNED, YOU GO TO HELL.

The wages sin pays is death. (Not, also you go to hell)

The dead are conscious of nothing.