Why is there any question about that?

 

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding there.
Not everyone that believes in evolution is an atheist. I actually do believe in deities (albeit radically differently from augustinian faiths as well as most pagan faiths). They can fit into the same system (just not creationism or the bible). Intelligent people look at the disgusting hypocrisies and contradictions of the bible and say, "How can anyone believe this drivel?" Scientists see the lack of evidence for god and since believing in god helps science in no way, shape, or form, they banish it away. Ocham's Razor. God only complicates the picture without reason.
There should be. And yes, they would have evolved from another species. Sadly we haven't found every fossilized remains of every homo erectus that ever lived. And we can't ever find them all (as animals like mice eat the bones of dead animals). All we can do is keep digging and trying to find more fossils.
I agree.
Anyone that says the bible is scientific and disagrees with evolution because of the bible is against science. You cannot accept science and believe in the bible at the same time.
Actually the people that survive the radioactive fallout will inherit the earth. Unless you consider cockroaches meek... Then yes, I would agree. :D

Oh, and YAY the site isn't slow anymore!

 

HAHAHAHAHA Oh man, that's awesome. I just kicked the holy hell out of jesus with satan. This is so getting sent to my heathen friends...

 

Thats what we need, to evolve into roach like creatures that can survive nuclear fallout.

The bible is not a scientific textbook. It dosen't claim to be. When it does talk about scientific stuff (earth being round, hanging upon nothing, health matters <--- Look in mosaic law) it is accurate. It dosen't get into the nitty gritty. When you think about it though, neither does evolution, they just say that it must of happened, even though they dont have proof, like what homo erectus evolved from/into.

 

What do you think about the flood stuff I posted? Can you at least agree that it is scientifically plausible?

 

There are verses that can be interpreted to support the idea that the dead are not conscious after death: (Ecc. 9:5 - the dead know nothing(4) and Psalm 146:4 - their thoughts perish, are good examples.) Other verses compare the dead to sleep: Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13, etc. But these latter verses are merely comparing the similarity between the appearance of the dead and the appearance of someone sleeping.


The wicked descend alive into Sheol
Num. 16:30, "But if the Lord brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the Lord . . . 33So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly."

Cast to outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth
Matt. 8:12, "but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Those cast into the fire suffer consciously
Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” See also Matt. 13:50.

Cast into a tormenting fire
Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."” See also, Rev. 21:8.

With regards to going to hell if you die, Hell is a real place. It is not mere unconsciousness. It is not temporal. It is eternal torment. Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there. After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them? If it was temporal, they'd get out in a while. But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong.

Jesus said, "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell," (Matt. 5:29-30).

 

The earth does not "hang upon nothing"!!! That is scientifically INACCURATE!!! Without the gravitational pull that the earth actually hangs upon there would be no life on this planet whatsoever because we would be floating around in the cold depths of our solar system.
And the bible only says the earth is spherical if you take the actual word and "interpret" it to mean sphere. If you don't take the bible for exactly what it says then why even use it?

 

xdorkx/krusty,
LOL... thanks for finding some more contradictions for dave.

 

If the earth is only 10,000 years old, was created in 6 days, and adam and eve ran from velociraptors and t-rex while munching on brontosaurus burgers, why are there no cave drawings of dinos? There are cave drawings of Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Tigers, but none of T-Rex or any other dinos.

 

scionofpcfl, this has been covered. God put the dinosaur bones on the earth to throw us off. There were never actually any live dinosaurs! Or so I've been told.

 

Not according to the new 60 million dollar mecca-o-wrongdom Creation Muesem....

 

Like I've said before, I agree with you there. But finding fossil bones that don't match any known organism does show signs of a species that was real and did exist.
Actually, yes, that is adaptation. That's practically a textbook example of it. That's their home. That's their diet. They have adapted to the cold through it. Taking them off of their diet and watching it go back to "normal" is the same as putting a polar bear in the zoo in chicago and saying "look he didn't die from living in summer weather, he wasn't adapted to life in the cold."
"Black people" don't have better cooling systems in the heat. People living in africa are adapted to the heat, regardless of color. If you lived there for several years you would too. They're called heat shock proteins. Look into it. They're pretty interesting. This is how all humans, and most organisms on the planet in fact, adapt to the weather. Ever notice how spring always seems warmer that the fall? They're usually the same temperatures. It is because you acclimate to the temperatures through your heat shock proteins.
This should be fun... (Oh, and again, NOT a religion. )
Note: WRITER not scientist. Mistake #2: Not informing of what these "colossal holes" are.
Evolution didn't "take place," in the past tense as if it stopped. Evolution always happens and will continue to happen even after writers die out and stop flapping their arms blindly.
Out of curiosity, do you know what time frame this quote was from? If it were at the time Darwin published his book, I would agree. Yes there is always vast arguments when a crazy new theory comes out. People don't like change. It frightens them. They don't want to think that their lives were spent studying something that is false or inaccurate. Now-a-days that academic dispute is far less pervasive.
Any idea what kind of periodical the "New Scientist" is? Just because it has science in the word doesn't make it scientific (christian science news, Scientology, etc.). Again, what time period was this from? Any explanation as to why they consider it not a genuine scientific theory? What criteria is it lacking?
An astronomer has no background in chemistry or biology or physics. Ocham's razor again. Life arising from an act of creation is unnecessarily complicating the matter. We have yet to determine the exact conditions that were necessary to "create" life from "non-living matter." We have however replicated those conditions to the best of our knowledge and created amino acids (the building blocks of life) from organic molecules we know to have been prevalent at the time. The process of life developing most likely took thousands or millions of years. You can't expect scientists to create it in a few decades of research.
I'd be interested in seeing what is in between 'eye' and 'could' (the elipses . . . ). And I've already explained (in generalized terms) how the eyes could have evolved. There are deep sea creatures with simple photopores and primitive eyes to use as comparison to prove this point. Again, astronomer with no background in genetics or biology.
Like?... I would like to see more information on this matter to form a more concrete opinion. It seems like some material was left out here. Are we talking about convergence? Divergence? Not enough fossils? Mutations occurring in spurts instead of a steady rate? Something is missing here...
Well what pattern does it show? Perhaps the theory can be revised. What data does he bring forth to shoot down the theory? I am genuinely interested in seeing his comparison between what slow evolution graphs as gradual trasitions vs what the fossil record shows.
This does lead me to believe that this quote was from many years ago. The field of genetics has grown immensely in recent years. We know how genes shape the form of living things now as well as the grammar behind the genetic code. I think these people just didn't have the knowledge of modern genetics to properly understand evolution as we do now. I have also heard of mutations in "leaps and bounds" before though. This doesn't negate the evidence for evolution. It merely puts a crink in Darwin's idea of evolution happening slow and steady. The mechanisms form mutations are really fascinating. It's difficult to tell people about them over the internet though. I'd say grab a genetics text book and look up stuff like frame shifting, gene insertion, nucleotide substitution, vectors, and crossing over. They can point to evolution going in large bounds rather than one small mutation every so often. (sometimes messing up one nucleotide base can have catastrophic effects on an organism and sometimes it does nothing. There is some redundancy in the genome language.)
The bolded statement I would agree with. Scientists are still human. As I mentioned before, some people are very stubborn and afraid of change. Theories get revised, science moves forward and refines.
And I'm very glad that pasteur and redi did prove spontaneous generation wrong. They more or less paved the way for the scientific method and challenging commonly held beliefs (Which tended to be propagated by the church) in favor of logical scientific explanations.
We have yet to determine the perfect settings for such an experiment to succeed. Someone has fairly recently reevaluated the experiment and performed it with increased results. But I've also mentioned this point earlier in this post.
I find those odds to be far off. Not to mention probabilities and the number of atoms in the universe have no relation to one another. Like comparing apples to a book. Not even in the same genre. The number of atoms in the universe is surely vastly larger than that estimate anyways. Certain "complex" proteins can assemble themselves spontaneously when in the proper conditions. I believe these values are from the past. Modern biochemistry I'm sure would show vastly different values. Not to mention amino acids build into proteins at different rates under different conditions. So one number of probability is an incomplete representation.
There is also a scientific concept known as electron tunneling. There is a barrier between the electron in a cell and an empty cell. The barrier blocks the electron from getting into the empty cell. There is a zero probability of it being able to go through or around the barrier to get to the empty cell. Yet sometimes it is shown to disappear from the original cell and reappear in the previously empty cell. Most modern electronics are based off of this concept. Just because something has a low probability doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.
No they wouldn't. It's already been stated before that the sea levels would not rise more than 300 feet. Once the water starts rising the cities will just build levees anyways. No one is going anywhere.
This is irrelevant. The mountains aren't going to flatten, then drown the world, then pop back up again right where it was to begin with. Poppycock.
The times at which that would have been true, the earth's surface would have still been in a protoplanet state. Volcanic activity was violent and extensive before man came to be. For the flood to have wiped out any civilizations, the volcanic activity would have already shaped the earth's surface to not make the flood viable.
This is if you believe the flood happened. There is no proof for it. The science shows against it. And by the way, glaciers moving shaping the earth... Um, yeah, you do realize what glaciers are made of don't you? DING! Water. The bottom of the glacier melts from pressure and reduces the friction between the ice and the ground beneath allowing the glacier to slide. This is the water action science explains.
I'm not real convinced of the predictions of ice ages as of yet. Much of it is open to interpretation. As is some of the global warming evidence. So I'll refrain from commenting about these.
Doesn't have to be a flood. Could have been dozens of other explanations that scientists have been debating for years. (By the way, the dinosaurs being killed by the meteor is starting to lose it's case. Evidence is pointing more towards other things like climate change and environmental and vegetation changes.)
Every culture also has tales of shapeshifters and monsters. It doesn't make them true.

 

I still don't know why we aren't studying roaches to figure out better ways to shield ourselves from radiation... I think a suit of bioarmor would be pretty badass.
You must not have read a textbook on evolution before. I suggest you pick one up at the library. One that is less than 2 years old.

 

Ok... even if you want to ignore that there is no possible way the Flood could produce the rock record we see, nor could the flood produce all the coal layers, oil reserves, or chalk layers that we see in the rocks... here is an end all question for you.

New earth theists maintain that the flood currents had to be between 89mph and 194mph. At those velocities all trees/plants would be ripped from the ground and die. So perhaps the olive leaf the dove brought back was from a seedling... fine I can accept that. But now you have a bunch of REALLY hungry animals with no food. Let's say there was dead vegetation to eat (not at all plausible), what did the carnivors eat? How did they not all die from hunger?

 

Oh... and not that I don't trust you krusty, but I looked it up and there is no mention of the flood in egyptian or mesopotamian cultures of the time. In addition, while "great flood" stories are extremely common in primitive cultures some describe survival by waiting in trees etc clearly contradicting the story the bible tells. I could go on all day with why there was no flood.

 

LOL WOW, BOY YOU SURE GOT US

*COUGH http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm COUGH*













Yup, you sure showed us whats up....

 

For the record, none of these are cave drawings.

 

Indeed I have. There are no cave drawings from primitave man on dinos. Know why I know this? Because primitave man and dinos were millions and millions of years apart from each other.

 

LMAO Ok... I need a little more time to comment on this but for anybody that wants a laugh I just found a website (I'm sure xdorkx knows of it) christiananswers.net that told me noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark with him.

 

it's a good site actually, and if Dinosaurs DID indeed exist at that time, i dont see why thats so hard to buy...he brought lions and sheep as well, they didnt eat eachother....