Originally posted by jaden101
i guess that being devoted to religion can mean you dont have to worry about learning...at allit's a great way to cover up for being lazy and thick
religion is understandable 1000+ years ago when so much of the universe was not understood...but in an age where many of the things which were attributed to religion or the supernatural are easily explained and more and more is being discovered and understood on a daily basis...then why do people still believe
Well...99% of the people are thick.
The remaining 1% realize that there mgiht be some benifit to the general concepts of various faiths.
Originally posted by jaden101
i guess that being devoted to religion can mean you dont have to worry about learning...at allit's a great way to cover up for being lazy and thick
religion is understandable 1000+ years ago when so much of the universe was not understood...but in an age where many of the things which were attributed to religion or the supernatural are easily explained and more and more is being discovered and understood on a daily basis...then why do people still believe
let me tell you something first of just because i said it was foolish to me dose not mean i don't try to learn about it,second you don't one thing about me so how dare you call me lazy as an matter of how dare you call anyone thats devoted lazy and thick.third i came here to let y'all know what i think,i didn't come here to be on trial by an bunch of people who really don't know if what their saying is right
Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
let me tell you something first of just because i said it was foolish to me dose not mean i don't try to learn about it,second you don't one thing about me so how dare you call me lazy as an matter of how dare you call anyone thats devoted lazy and thick.third i came here to let y'all know what i think,i didn't come here to be on trial by an bunch of people who really don't know if what their saying is right
Evolution by natural selection is one of the most factual principles in all of science.
If you have opinons, you should be able to back them up. Yours cannot be backed up.
Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
let me tell you something first of just because i said it was foolish to me dose not mean i don't try to learn about it,second you don't one thing about me so how dare you call me lazy as an matter of how dare you call anyone thats devoted lazy and thick.third i came here to let y'all know what i think,i didn't come here to be on trial by an bunch of people who really don't know if what their saying is right
can someone please translate that for me
i will say that there is one HUGE piece of evidence for a flaw in natural selection...the fact that you and "jesus is alive" are still living and breathing
Originally posted by Templares
Debunked: Evolution is atheistic. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html*excerpt*
(Clergy Letter Project 2005) [/B]
More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, [B]"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
Then those 10,000 clergy don't know Jesus. No true Christian would "in essence" call God a lie by espousing evolution. Hypothetically, speaking Templares how would you feel or what would be your mindset if your significant other stated that she loves you and only you, but then you found her in bed with your most hated enemy just 1 hour later that same night, while you were on your way home from work. What would you think about her now? Again this is hypothetical so don't vent your spleen. Now after you found her in bed with your worst enemy she jumps out of bed, grabs you and says that she loves you with all her heart. What would you think then? I had to make up something that a man would find very touchy so that you could understand where I am coming from about the 10,000 clergy. If any one of those clergy truly loved God, trusted God, and believed in God and His Bible explanation on the origin of life, how can they jump up (like your hypothetical significant other) and say,
"...We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth....",
That is the same principle just different situation as what your hypothetical woman did to you. She said that she loved you, trusted you, and believed you (that you are all the man that she needs and wants), but just 1 hour later was found in bed with your enemy. Evolution is the enemy of God because it contradicts God's Word (the Bible). Those clergy in this crude example are just as (or rather "what they said" is just as...) despicable as what your significant other said to you, especially after she was caught in the act. God will catch (I am speaking stricly figuratively) everyone of those clerygmen in the act (now I am speaking literally) on the Day of Judgment. Those men will individually give account for what they said in direct contradiction to what the Bible states. I wonder what their reply will be.
http://www.halos.com/ (evolution refuted and debunked)
Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?
Some of our newest research concerns astronomy and cosmology. Our findings provide a radically new model of the cosmos while also showing why the Big Bang Theory is fatally flawed. For more on this topic, please see our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org.
Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.
Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.
Our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked."
http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/evidence.htm (hoo...hoo! preach!)
I will give you all just a taste...a snippit...a smidgeon to whet your appetite for the facts. I just had to act immature that one time. The truth makes one a little giddy sometimes.
"EVIDENCE FOR CREATION
Following are a number of arguments why the Theory of Evolution (and that's all it is) cannot be correct, and why Creation has to be correct. More extensive evidence, largely ignored or brushed over by most of the agnostic scientific community, is contained in the excellent book In the Beginning by Walter T. Brown. More on that later. Let's first look at:
The Male - Female Problem
The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.
Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.
The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?"
Originally posted by 7267398
[i
The Male - Female Problem
The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.
The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?"[/i] [/B]
...Because Evolution doesn't happen over a matter of a few generations. It occurs over millions of years. The evolution is too gradual to be considered mutation. An ape didn't have a baby ape that could suddenly walk - over thousands of generations, the ape went gradually from being a quadruped to biped. This enabled the ape's front legs to be used for other things than walking, so they became hands. Having hands enabled the ape to begin to make tools, to think about things like problem solving. Again this happened over thousands of generations. As the brain developed, so we thought about other things. Like having a debate.
Evidence of recent physical changes to humans is very easy to see. If any of you live in Britain, or have visited Britain, you no doubt would have visited Tudor or earlier houses, built 500 years ago, or about 20 generations (roughly). You may, like me, have to stoop through the doorways in these houses, as humans 500 years ago were several inches shorter than today. We are always changing physically, always 'evolving'. That in itself doesn't prove or disprove evolution, but it does disprove your argument above.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/evidence.htm (hoo...hoo! preach!)I will give you all just a taste...a snippit...a smidgeon to whet your appetite for the facts. I just had to act immature that one time. The truth makes one a little giddy sometimes.
[b]"EVIDENCE FOR CREATION
Following are a number of arguments why the Theory of Evolution (and that's all it is) cannot be correct, and why Creation has to be correct. More extensive evidence, largely ignored or brushed over by most of the agnostic scientific community, is contained in the excellent book In the Beginning by Walter T. Brown. More on that later. Let's first look at:The Male - Female Problem
The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.
The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?" [/B]
thats not actually evidence FOR creationism though is it
arguing that one point isnt true doesn't by default make another argument true
below is a list of all the investigations and evidence for creationism
the end