fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
rmac694203 said:
Good luck. Get back to me when you've found ONE THING true about evolution.
America's Judgment - A Losing War with Islam
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Good luck. Get back to me when you've found ONE THING true about evolution.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
So it was alright to stone your children and wife in the past? And, if you're in a country where stoning is allowed, the Bible will condone such actions? Please explain.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
If you're going to ask such open-ended, loaded questions, I'm going to start responding with answers like, "Go read the Old Testament and get back to me" or "use your common sense."
You know me, Deville. I have no hesitation about explaining or debating the Bible. But those questions are borderline contemptuous.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
That wasn't my intention...
RRocket stated hat the Bible condoned violence, he used the stoning of 'your' wife/children as an example. You did not flat out dismiss this but stated something along the lines that it is and isn't ok. Just looking for clarification; does the Bible (God's Law) allow for a man to kill his wife/children if they disobey him?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Those laws were written for the Israelites during the time period where they were directly under God's rule. The right and wrong of those laws still applies. However, after some time the Israelites asked God to give them a king, so He allowed them to be ruled by kings. He commands us to obey them that have the rule over us, so whatever laws are on the books are what we obey.
To explain this further would take several pages of posting, and you can just as easily just go read the Bible and bone up on Israelite ancient history.
I'll sum it up by saying that God hates sin, and everyone will pay for their sin at some point during the Judgment. God does not require us to execute rebellious children and wives in today's day and age.
rmac694203
Dedicated LVC Member
I do remember reading about how animals are still evolving to this day. Let me look it up. Other than that, I'm not going to waste my time finding information on the history of evolution because I really don't care. Besides, anything I find won't make one bit of difference to you, because you have already set your mind on it.fossten said:
rmac694203
Dedicated LVC Member
Here is what I was talking about. It's probably not what you were looking for, but it is still interesting. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bigger-faster-stronger/2006/02/16/1139890831455.html
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
rmac694203 said:
That's adaptation within a species. Those cane toads are developing longer legs, but they are still cane toads. DNA isn't changing, nor is the species. Humans are taller than they were 100 years ago too. That doesn't prove evolution. That's called breeding.
Darwin argued that new species sprang from old ones, i.e. that mammals came from reptiles or vice versa. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that this ever happened. In fact, the evidence strongly supports the opposite view. Ever heard of the "Cambrian Explosion?" That's the evolutionary way of explaining away a phenomenon that disproves the theory of gradual evolution.
Fossil evidence shows that there were no intermediate, missing links, only a starting point of thousands upon thousands of different species. To argue that evolution is speeding up is contrary to Darwinian principles, such as they are.
As far as your personal comment, you will not convince me of something that is contrary to a preponderance of evidence. That's called common sense.
rmac694203
Dedicated LVC Member
OK, fair enough
How do you explain this. Were all these starting points at the same time. Because if all these species just sprang up at different times in history, how does that relate to god? Did he create other species later on after the intial creation?? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious.fossten said:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
According to the Biblical account of creation, there were no later species created. The work was completed in six days.rmac694203 said:
There's no mention in the Bible of God ever creating species at a later time. In Genesis it clearly describes when he created ALL the animals on Earth, and that he did it on the fifth and sixth day of creation.
1:20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.
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.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [emphasis for you environmentalists!]
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Damn, must have been crowded then. Considering that about 95% of all the species that ever existed (not including ones we do not know of yet) are extinct; it must have been one huge cluster#$%@ in the beginning.
"and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [emphasis for you environmentalists!]"...
That doesn't mean we should not take care and respect our gifts? Wouldn't you be insulted if you gave someone a beautiful and wonderful gift only to see them misuse and destroy it? I'd consider it a slap in the face.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:Damn, must have been crowded then. Considering that about 95% of all the species that ever existed (not including ones we do not know of yet) are extinct; it must have been one huge cluster#$%@ in the beginning.
What are you talking about? Do you even know how big the earth is? The earth has never been as crowded as it is now, and yet you could fit the entire human population of the earth inside Texas with a pop density less than New York City's.
Also consider that there likely weren't oceans back then, which means everything was land. Got enough space for you now?
It's more wacky to think of all the intermediate species envisioned by Darwin. You know, the ones we have ZERO fossils for? That would have been crowded.
95DevilleNS said:
I'm talking about wackos like PETA. Obviously it's okay for us to eat any animal we want. The point is that the Earth is our gift to use, not to ignore or preserve to our own detriment.
Man is paying a higher price in God's eyes for his sin than for polluting or consuming the Earth. Besides, there is no evidence that man is destroying the Earth. There's more evidence that the Earth is destroying itself than that man is doing it.
Barwick
Well-Known LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:Damn, must have been crowded then. Considering that about 95% of all the species that ever existed (not including ones we do not know of yet) are extinct; it must have been one huge cluster#$%@ in the beginning.
"and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [emphasis for you environmentalists!]"...
That doesn't mean we should not take care and respect our gifts? Wouldn't you be insulted if you gave someone a beautiful and wonderful gift only to see them misuse and destroy it? I'd consider it a slap in the face.
That's funny, since each breed of dog in the fossil record would be a different "species" to the lame-brained evolutionist scientists of today, and because as I understand it, there was about three breeds of dogs back a centruy or two ago, while today there's what, hundreds of breeds of dogs?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Another thing for you evolutionist kool-aid drinkers to think about:
The Cambrian Explosion was invented to explain where a vast majority of fossils appeared at the same time, because it did not comport with Darwinian theory.
This collection of fossils would not support how these animals appeared, however, nearly as well as it would support how they DIED. There is very good evidence of the Biblical Flood here.
The Cambrian Explosion was invented to explain where a vast majority of fossils appeared at the same time, because it did not comport with Darwinian theory.
This collection of fossils would not support how these animals appeared, however, nearly as well as it would support how they DIED. There is very good evidence of the Biblical Flood here.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:What are you talking about? Do you even know how big the earth is? The earth has never been as crowded as it is now, and yet you could fit the entire human population of the earth inside Texas with a pop density less than New York City's.
Also consider that there likely weren't oceans back then, which means everything was land. Got enough space for you now?
It's more wacky to think of all the intermediate species envisioned by Darwin. You know, the ones we have ZERO fossils for? That would have been crowded.
24,901 miles in circumference & 7,926 miles in diameter. I'm not talking about the human population only, I'm talking about every living species of animal that ever existed. By your theory, the earth would have had 95%+ more species on it than today on the 6th day. But me saying that was merely some light humor.
Why would I not consider there weren't oceans? There were no fish? Damn, I love fish.
Well, that’s where evolutionist and creationist differ also, creationists believe that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old, evolutionist believe it is billions on years old. So two things to consider (if you believe the earth is older than 6 thousand years) 1) We're not going to find fossil's of every living thing due to erosion/decay 2) Earlier fossils differ from newer ones, we can track how animals changed and evolved to adapt to a changing planet. You won't find complex mammals or birds 500 millions years ago, but you will 250 million years ago (that’s just an example, I am not a evolutionary scientist with die hard specific facts)
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Barwick said:
Not sure what you're point is??? But dogs (and wolves) are one species, since they are able to interbreed. One of the reasons we have so many subspecies is due to the fact that a German Shepard could for all technical purposes be breed with a Chihuahua.
I'm not a dog breeder, but if you ask one, I'd bet they'd tell you that most types of dogs today are due to mixing of breeds. Also, I'm fairly certain there were more than just three breeds of dogs 100 years ago.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
24,901 miles in circumference & 7,926 miles in diameter. I'm not talking about the human population only, I'm talking about every living species of animal that ever existed. By your theory, the earth would have had 95%+ more species on it than today on the 6th day. But me saying that was merely some light humor.
Why would I not consider there weren't oceans? There were no fish? Damn, I love fish.
Well, that’s where evolutionist and creationist differ also, creationists believe that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old, evolutionist believe it is billions on years old. So two things to consider (if you believe the earth is older than 6 thousand years) 1) We're not going to find fossil's of every living thing due to erosion/decay 2) Earlier fossils differ from newer ones, we can track how animals changed and evolved to adapt to a changing planet. You won't find complex mammals or birds 500 millions years ago, but you will 250 million years ago (that’s just an example, I am not a evolutionary scientist with die hard specific facts)
I correct my previous statement. There were oceans and fish.
Your statement about fossils is incorrect. The fossils found by scientists are believed by evolutionists to represent animals who died millions of years ago. So your theory about decay doesn't wash.
There are ZERO intermediate species fossils showing missing links between species. In fact, there have been several fraudulent attempts to manufacture such links, which indicates the level of desperation on the side of the evolutionists to fool people.
Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?
Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Every living thing that dies doesn't automatically become a fossil; in fact, it's very unlikely that it will. Many factors have to play just right, temperature, the type of land, weather, measure of time etc. etc. etc. etc. Consider the amount of living things that have died even in the last 6 thousand years compared to the amount of fossils we've discovered. Death doesn't automatically equal fossil so no, we're not going to have every bit of proof laid out comveniently for us. But, who knows what we have yet to find, people are still digging and learning. Would you really prefer that scientist and archeologist stop since the Bible tells us what 'really' happened?
Where are these abundant fraudulent claims you speak of? And please, do not bring up 19th century circus side show displays as proof.
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7).
That's one thing I find funny, people are ready and willing to absolutely believe that man was created from dirt, yet gawk at the notion we slowly evolved from lower life forms over the course of billions on years.
rmac694203
Dedicated LVC Member
I was under the impression that dinosaurs were extinct before man was even around. So if god created everything in six days, how is it human fossils can not be found in the same time period as dinosaurs?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
See the bold part above. That supports my point. Pressure and temperature and other things make fossils, but millions upon millions of years would decompose them. Isn't it interesting how many there are? Wonder why that is. More likely the flood caused a large volume of them at one time.95DevilleNS said:
Don't try putting a silly straw man in front of me. I have no problem with archaeology. The only people with their heads in the sand ignoring what science is really telling them are the evolutionists.95DevilleNS said:
95DevilleNS said:
Jeez. Do you not read what I post? I just gave you a starter list. Go back and read it. :slam I won't overload you with information until you're caught up with the basics.
Barwick
Well-Known LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
No, I said that according to the lame-brained scientists of today, if they saw fossils of each, with the Chihauhua buried beneath the German Shepard in sedimentary layers, they'd say "WOW!! Look at this small dog, it must have evolved into this big dog!!!"
Barwick
Well-Known LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
No, but don't be a crackhead when a scientist comes out and says "The Bible says this, and if it were true, we should see such and such evidence." Then they go out and find the evidence. Or, they find evidence on Earth, and say "Based on this evidence, it appears there was a massive global flood that rapidly buried all these fossils. That is in direct support of the Biblical account of the flood."
Pictures like these are a summary:
I'm sure this fish just said "aww crap, forget it, I think I'll lie down and die here, right in the middle of my meal"
Here's a good one, each of these layers, scientists claim, represent millions of years of deposits. Note the tree that was magically fossilized over apparently tens of millions of years:
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Barwick said:
Not sure it's that cut and dry...
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Or, some survive the millions upon millions of years through the sheer luck of circumstances; ever consider that? There is much evidence that points to several mass extinctions throughout earth 'life' cycles; not just one huge flood.
Barwick
Well-Known LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Yeah, and there's numerous scientists that have done population scenarios using verified computer simulations, accounting for global events (wars, famines, plagues, etc), plugged in the number "8" about 4300 years ago, and it returned 6 billion population today. If they plug in 100,000 years, we won't fit on Earth, standing shoulder to shoulder.