Evolution or Creation

Fat_Fett: The Bible has fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, many more than any other religions' text (including Hinduism).

Oh? Hmmm... Guess you haven't read the four Vedas, The Mahabharata, The Bhagavad-Gita, the Sutras, the Puranas, the Upanishads, the six systems of Indian Philosophy... If you did, you wouldn't be jumping to such naive conclusions... but thanks for doing absolutely nothing to actually provide supporting evidence for Creation. Although I bet you've done a bang up job of reducing your theological credibility, given the fact that your post was rife with assertions that demonstrate your absolute lack of knowledge of other religions... not to mention the most obvious fact, that the Biblical prophecies are predominantly self-fulfilling.


Palpazzar:

I have told you time and again what creation is.

You have told me... but you keep changing your story. One minute it's not disproving evolution, the next it's not proving god.

If you want to examine the research, then look it up. I don't have to report on findings which I fully admit I do not have training to understand.

And neither does the leading Creation Science "expert", as my arguments against the blind assertions of Dr. Duane Gish so clearly pointed out.

However, the example of magnetic fields that I referred to used a creationist model of planetary conditions to predict the strength of fields around other planets in the solar system.

And this has what to do with countering evolution theory?

According to the study I read which I have not mentioned because I have not fully checked its validity yet (and I hate to report possibly flawed studies).

Which studies have you presented as direct evidence of creation that were actually accepted by the scientific community?


Nevertheless, according to the study, the predictions were supported after the fact by the Viking satellite. I believe that Uranus was the planet cited in the study. This is science.

I said it before, but in case you were too busy to actually read my comment... Just because Creation "Scientists" use a haphazard way to hypothesize at something that is later proven by true scientific methods doesn't mean that everything they haven't empirically tested should be accepted. This would be like saying that because the Ames Research Labs proved amino acids can form in space environments, unrelated experiments in spontaneous human combustion conducted by a few of the scientists at Ames were equally scientific in their approach... without actually looking at how the study in question was done. Substituting A for Z doesn't make Z correct, Palpazzar.

Anywho, creation did start with the literal interpretation of Genesis, but as Creationists are scientists, they also know that the Genesis account cannot be proven.

But they try to prove it anyway without any respect given to other religious views on creation/evolution. Again, and I think someone else mentioned it... the difference between Creation and Evolution is that Creation is one specific account from the perspective of one particular religion. There are other accounts from other religions which are more in congruence with the field of astrobiology... and have been so for thousands of years before Christianity. Hinduism is one of them... and all the calculations that Hindu astronomers have made thousands of years ago, one of the most famous of them being Aryabhata, are so accurate that to this day they continue to astonish modern astronomers and scientists. However, those formulations were backed by actual scientific/mathematical discplines, not circular references to scripture... and still, the aim wasn't solely for Aryabhata to prove the legitimacy of the thousands of prophecies, stories and accounts in Hinduism.

If Creationism's aim isn't simply to prove Biblical Creation.. then what is it? To prove that pink elephants can fly? If it didn't arise out of the desire to prove Biblical Creation... what else contributed to it?

I don

 

This is stupid, arguing for the sake of arguing, i suggest to all creationists to give it up, obviously we wont be able to change the minds of the evolutionists.

We can post as much scientific proof that supports creation and they will call the scientists liars, biased, ignorant, unqualified, etc. just because it does not support their side. We call creationism a science, since it IS, because it does comply with their 4 or 5 points that must be met to qualify, but that is just according to these evolutionists. This bickering is pointless, let them swim in ignorance, because i wont do it. Let them keep their faith on their scientific speculation, unproven "observation" (which i greatly doubt since the time frame needed to prove all that is way beyond observation), and just stick to your own beliefs.

just one last point, your webster's dictionary defines science as this:

SCIENCE:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

And if you can read you will notice how theology is mentioned in the definition, but your bias will keep it out of the definition. Evolutionist classify science differently then the general criteria for such, so just in that start we don't agree. It is now a matter of which of the two do you wish to believe, and i prefer to believe that i am not the descendant of a monkey or slime. So that is why i retire from this, it is useless.

 

Fat_Fett:
Snowdog, if you keep criticizing us (the Creationists) for attacking old, 100 year old theories, why do you believe in something based on an argument started over 150 years ago..

The problem is not that creationists attack 100-year-old theories, it is that they use 100-year-old information to do so. A theory does not automatically become worse with age (the cell theory of life is just as good as it was when it was introduced), but if you are attacking a theory based on what we knew 100 years ago, one is given to wondering why you are avoiding the knowledge accumulated since then.

...something that has to continually change after being debunked by Creationists.

LOL! Give us one example of anything that has been "debunked" by creationists. FYI, the idea that living things have descended from a common ancestor has not changed in over 100 years. The idea that evolution by natural selection is responsible has not changed in over 100 years. You are grasping at straws.

If your argument had such an old, weak base to begin with that it had to be constantly changed, why do Evolutionists base their ideas on it exactly?

I do not know about "evolutionists," but scientists base their arguments on empirical observations. Scientists are also ready to change their theories if they discover new information that shows them to be in error, that is part of what science is. Creationism does not, which is just one more reason that it is not a science.

Edit: My Sources

1. Saint, Phil. Fossils that Speak Out: Creation vs. Evolution. Melbourne, Florida: Dove Christian Books, 1989.

2. "Creation vs. Evolution: Part II." 2001. Library.Thinkquest.org. 30 Sep. 2001.
<http://www.library.thinkquest.org/29178/>

3. "Creation Science Homepage." Emporium.turnpike.net. 2001. 27 Sep 2001.
<http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm>

4. "Answersingenesis.org." Gospel Communication Network. 2001. Answersingenesis.org.
27 September 2001. <http://www.answersingenesis.org>

5. "Pathlights.com." Sword of Orion Productions. 2000. Pathlights.com. 10 October 2001.
<http://www.pathlights.com>

6. "Creationism.org." 2001. Creationism.org. 8 October 2001.
<http://www.creationism.org>

And you think that this is a good way to get unbiased information? If you want to find out why scientists think that earth is round, do you visit "Flat Earth Society" websites? It's no wonder you are so uninformed about the nature of science in general and evolution in particular.

Peez

 

Palpazzar:
First having an extra X chromosome is not adding information. X chromosomes are already present. There is merely an extra copy made. No new material.

You still have to define "information" and explain why it supposedly cannot be increased.

To name a Creationist question is this: Using the Creation model, can accurate predictions be made about the magnetic field strength? Oh, wait. I bet you didn't know real science was used by Creationists because you don't care enough o at least investigate what they do.

Instead of implying that Darth_SnowDog is lazy, perhaps you could think about what you have said (or, to be more precise, what you have not said). Just asking: "Using the Creation model, can accurate predictions be made about the magnetic field strength?" is not science in any way. You haven't even asked a question that is generated by a creation "theory." All you have done is asked whether creationism might make certain predictions. If you want to impress us, just show us a prediction. You are telling us that this is science, there must be some scientists at ICR who are doing scientific research, just show us an actual empirical test that has been conducted. Preferably in biology, but if you are desperate you can use magnetic fields, but show us.

You are ignorant of the aims of Creation. It is not about disproving evolution.

I disagree, but in any event it is not science.

Your baseless accusations reveal your devotion to stereotyping the beliefs of a group that I personal believe you cannot stand.

???

It is an inaccurate stereotype BTW. Creationism has nothing to do with theology at its root. No there has been no formal paradigm put forward yet which I hope happens soon. However the scientific method (which is the same as 100 years ago, merely more tools availible) is the basis for creationism.

Not even close. If I am wrong, just show us a few examples. That should be easy, given how obvious it appears to be to someone as ill-informed as yourself.

I have already given an example of Creation science - magnetic fields. That is VERY empirical and testable. Does anyone care disagree with that point?

All you have done is talk about magnetic fields. In what way does that show that creationism is science? Where is the testable hypothesis that was generated by creationism? Yes, I care to disagree with that point.

Peez

 

Palpazzar:
My first source for this Hox gene says that it causes an abnormality in limbs.

I suggest that you try looking at actual biology references for a change. Even in an introductory biology text, like Biology, Sixth Edition by Campbell and Reece (2002, Benjamin/Cummings), you can find that:

The transformation of a zygote to an animal of specific form depends on the controlled expression in the developing embryo of special regulatory genes called Hox genes.

(p.634) Certain changes in the Hox gene may result in limb "abnormalities," but what does that tell us? Other changes may have different effects. Exactly what is your point, other than advertising that you do not understand genetics?

Among cases in women were effects resulting in infertility. That is not very adaptive.

I am sure that you are going to point out where some evolutionary biologist claimed that mutations are always adaptive.

Anyway, if this is the correct Hox gene, the website inculdes this:

"The mutation they found was a coding change from the amino acid tryptophan to a nonsense or stop codon which resulted in a HOXA13 protein which was missing the last 20 amino acids."

It is kind of hard to add information to genetics when information is being lost. This is not evolution and falls in line with what I described earlier. However, I will ask if I have the wrong gene so that I may find the truth.

That website does not sound reliable, since a "stop codon" is most certainly not "nonsense." All DNA that codes for a protein must have a "stop codon." And you are back to "information," still having not defined it or explained why it supposedly cannot increase by mutation.

Peez

 

and i prefer to believe that i am not the descendant of a monkey or slime

Or you just have no reasonable argument to counter the theory of evolution so now you have to base your opinion on this.

There is not a single thing in science that is religion specific. Not a single thing. Not one principle, not one law.

That alone is reason enough for creationism to lose most of it's validity.

Imagine if the theory of relativity only applied to Muslims. Or that gravity only affects atheists.

Religious beliefs do not translate into scientific facts.

 

once you realize we are realted to other animals on this planet not only will you hopefully be able to treat them better, but you will also be able to better understand human psychology and why we do the things we do

 

Palpazzar:
I have told you time and again what creation is. If you want to examine the research, then look it up.

Couldn't find any, eh?

I don't have to report on findings which I fully admit I do not have training to understand.

You do not have the training to understand, but you are willing to get right in here and tell people that scientists who are experts in this field have it all wrong.

However, the example of magnetic fields that I referred to used a creationist model of planetary conditions to predict the strength of fields around other planets in the solar system. According to the study I read which I have not mentioned because I have not fully checked its validity yet (and I hate to report possibly flawed studies).

Nevertheless, according to the study, the predictions were supported after the fact by the Viking satellite. I believe that Uranus was the planet cited in the study. This is science.

So, let's see, your evidence that creationism is science is some study that you say you read, which you refuse to name or give any reference to, and which you do not have the training to understand, and which might not be valid, made some sort of unspecified predictions, which you say were "supported" in some unspecified way by the Viking "satellite." Is that it?

Anywho, creation did start with the literal interpretation of Genesis, but as Creationists are scientists, they also know that the Genesis account cannot be proven. The method is not possible. So instead, creationists look toward other questions. That is what plenty of sciences have done, psychology for example.

You keep talking around it, but never actually mention any empirically testable hypotheses. Why is that?

I cannot believe how unwilling people are to think for themselves.

ROFLMAO!!!!

All you have accepted is creation is about proving God created the earth. No. Creationism uses the scientific methods of research, hypothesis, experimentation, interpretation, peer review, and reevaulation. Science isn't believing in evolution and accepting nothing else. Science is using objective data to search for truth. That is what creationists do.

Actually, you are using a much more restrictive definition of "creationism" than I am. Creationism is not necessarily about Christianity, or even one god. Also, evolution is not incompatible with the existence of one or more gods. That being said, it is pretty clear that the creationist movement in the USA is all about pushing Christianity. It is a political and social movement, and is not in any way science. That is why it is trying to get into schools using political, rather than scientific, tools.

Snowdog, I would suggest for you that you do what you claim you have done all along, break out of your preconceptions and look at the evidence of how creationism works. I know you will not agree with the findings. But if you would look at the ontology, epistemology, and methodology you would see Creationism is a science. That goes for others as well.

I would suggest that you learn what science is generally, and what evolution is specifically, before making pronouncements on these areas.

Peez

 

Palpazzar:
Nodule,
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not used by Creationists in the field. That is the argument of laymen only. Even I disregard it now.

Oh, really? What about this at Answers in Genesis? <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp>

In conclusion,
1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme.

or this at Christian Answers Network <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html>

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

or this at the Institute for Creation Research <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm>

It is the Second law (of thermodynamics), however, that wipes out the theory of evolution.

Would you care to reconsider your position?

Peez

 

Fat_Fett:
The Bible has fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, many more than any other religions' text (including Hinduism). The Bible is so historically correct that archeologists use it as a reference and study guide to ancient Semite and Middle-Eastern life! Yet this is the same Bible that you say cannot be proved to be correct!

I am going to hazzard a guess: you have not read much of the Hindu writings, such as the Vedas. By all means prove us wrong: dazzle us with your insight into these writings (without looking it up on the Web, of course). But even ignoring that, what about your own holy book. Have you actually taken the time to read it? Have you noticed how rabbits are said to "chew the cud"? (they do not) How about the mountain that is so high that a man on top can see all the nations of the earth? (hard to do on a spherical earth) Just check out <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html> for a sampling of how "accurate" the bible is.

If the Bible is so much more HISTORICALLY and prophetically true than any other religous book around, but you and the other evolutionists on this board regard it as "scientifically unproven".......I wonder how much more "true" a.k.a. "totally false" your other religious texs are.

So, you have given up on finding evidence against evolution, or for creationism, and are now just going to rant on about the Bible? I hope that you realize that you are insulting many devout Christians by your tactics.

To the person who asked me "If God is omni-powerful as you say He is, why did He have to rest on the 7th day?" -God "rested" is not to be taken literally as 'He slept.' The actual translation can be 'He did not work on the 7th day'.

Ah, and you (among the billions of us poor mortals) are going to tell us which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally (God created the heavens and the earth, for example?) and which should not (Moses telling his troops to murder women and children, for example?).

Before you all go criticizing the Bible, perhaps you should first get the smallest notion of what you are talking about. In case you didn't know, the Bible is translated from 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and has now been translated into English. Write a sentence and put it through a translator 3 times (each through a different language), then tranlate it back into English. Are you going to get the same definition for "slept"? Of course not!

If we cannot trust the translations, why should we trust the originals (which we don't seem to have anyhow)? In any event, you are the one who brought the Bible into it. I was happy to talk about evolution and creationism.

If you want to think that you are right and that I am wrong, even though I too list my facts that I believe to be true.....you are being a naive hypocrite! If evolution is a theory and not a law, it cannot be right in every aspect! Get over it!

Go get a dictionary, look up theory. Then go get a biology text book, read it.

If you cry for me, thank you for your cause of concern. Perhaps you secularists here aren't as cold-hearted and anti-Christian as you make yourselves out to be.

I mourn for you becuase I KNOW what will happen to you if you don't change your ways. However stubborn you want to be, the Bible, THE most prophetically correct book in the history of the World (!) says, that one day "every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Don't even try to argue RELIGION with me and how my religion is wrong if YOUR religious books can't even compare to the historical and prophetical truths of the Bible.

Your claiming it does not make it so.

Watch this, Palpazzar. They will probably accuse ME of being close minded "just like every other Christian," when they themselves shut off all the scientific truths of Creationism and the numerous flaws in Evolutionary theory......total hypocricy.

 

dont you realize that it is inconcievable for these people to not believ in a soul. they cant even fathom that, or at least they wont admit to it

 

R2D2-PENA:
We can post as much scientific proof that supports creation...

Oooo! There's an idea! Please post some, for a change, and stop merely claiming that it exists, somewhere, you think...

We call creationism a science, since it IS, because it does comply with their 4 or 5 points that must be met to qualify, but that is just according to these evolutionists.

"4 or 5 points" like being based on observations? Like taking the facts and developing a theory from them, rather than starting with a theory and then trying to shoe-horn facts into it? Note that the whole issue of "evolution vs creationism" is here because certain Christian fundamentalists just couldn't accept the conclusions of science.

Let them keep their faith on their scientific speculation, unproven "observation" (which i greatly doubt since the time frame needed to prove all that is way beyond observation), and just stick to your own beliefs.

You can doubt all you want, just keep your religious dogma out of the science classroom. I will agree to avoid entering church and teaching science.

just one last point, your webster's dictionary defines science as this:

SCIENCE:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

Yup, and the scientific method is also defined:

scientific method : principles and procedures for the systemic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

So, in science we "pursue" knowledge by "collecting data" etc., not just reading it out of a book that we assume is true. Note the part about "testing hypotheses." Care to provide one, just one, example of an hypothesis from creationism that can be tested by "observation" or "experiment"?

And if you can read you will notice how theology is mentioned in the definition, but your bias will keep it out of the definition.

You think that creationism is theology? Ask a few theologians (with advanced degrees from reputable universities) about the "historical accuracy" of the Bible.

Evolutionist classify science differently then the general criteria for such, so just in that start we don't agree.

Scientists do define some terms differently than those terms may tend to be used by many others, but our definition is one of the standard ones right there in Webster's.

It is now a matter of which of the two do you wish to believe, and i prefer to believe that i am not the descendant of a monkey or slime. So that is why i retire from this, it is useless.

How appropriate: you end with a comment that illustrates once again that you do not understand evolution (no evolutionary biologist thinks that humans descended from monkeys), that you do not understand science (creationism might be right, but there is no way to test it so it isn't science) (of course, it is silly enough that I very much doubt that it is right), and you choose creationism because you want to and not because of any evidence. That says it all.

Peez

 

"Oooo! There's an idea! Please post some, for a change, and stop merely claiming that it exists, somewhere, you think"

I have posted information but you evolutionists decided to debunk it by your bias, calling those scientists liars, or hoaxes, read my earlier posts, but since i noticed your attitude towards my posts, i decided not to post any more.

And next time you decide to quote me, please be kind to include the whole quote, not just the part that you can use to your advantage, please.

I'M OUT!!

 

R2D2-PENA

It seems like you are trying to convert us all to chrisitianity rather than providing us with reasons to believe in creationism.

 

For your information, the Bible IS the religious book with the most fulfilled prophecies! I did NOT claim that Hinduism had NOT fulfilled any prophecies! Why do you feel an overwhelming need to twist my words around and use them against me when I say something you KNOW is true but is against what you foolishly want to follow?

Snowdog, if you claim that I know nothing about other world religions, perhaps you yourself should get the facts straight on Christianity BEFORE you start ranting on about Hinduism. One thing I KNOW about Hinduism is that it does not fulfill as man prophecies as the Bible. What, were you trying to CONVINCE me that Hinduism fulfills more prophecies than the Bible? LOL! If not, why would you list the books of your religion when addressing the question?

If Hinduism has so many more completed prophecies than the Bible has (as you make it sound like it does), please tell me what they are, and how many more there are in the Hindu holy books than in the Bible!

No matter how much all you Evolutionists try to sound like "scientists," with all of your INSTANTLY correct facts, you don't even follow the #1 rule of being a debating scientist.......you are supposed to be objectionable, not biased! Why do you address only some of the subjects we bring up? You leave others totally ignored becuase you don't have an answer for them! And....this...somehow ISN'T biased?

Why do no famous Evolutionists come into a debate with any Creationists? They are afraid that their bias will be exposed, and with a bias they can not be legit scientists.

I'm not taking your Evolution quotes and twisting them around and making a mockery of them! For some reason, you paraphrase and quote only parts of what we say in such a way that it makes you look better than you would if you actually used the genuine quote!

If you laugh at the Bible's prophecies, and want me to list the prophecies that came true.....I will list them.

The chances for Jesus Christ to fulfill all of the prophecies (or, if you wish, "events forseen in the future") that he did in the New Testament is the same chance that you would have of coating Texas with silver marbles, placing one red marble somewhere in the mess, and picking out that marble. Jesus DID exist, and non-Christian historical accounts say that He did fulfill prophecies that were foretold more than 600 years before He was born.

As to the question of why Moses allowed the slaughtering of women and children......If you are going to defend Hinduism, a religion which STILL encourages the killing of people of other religions....don't point your hypocritical finger at me. Hinduism, Islam, and scores of other religions still encourage the killings of other religious people (my dad should know, he has been a Pastor and a missionary for over 25 years!). Perhaps if you actually read both the New and Old Testaments you wouldn't make yourself sound so foolish. Jesus set up a new law, a CHRISTIAN law on the Earth - it was no longer Judaism's "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," it was "turn the other cheek." Hence, CHRISTIANITY does not encourage the killing of other religous peoples.....you know, there IS a difference between Christianity and Judaism. It's just pretty depressing that you mock my religion and you didn't even know that.

Snowdog, how can the Biblical prophesies be "self fulfilling" if the books of the Bible were written by people of all social classes and nationalities, hundreds of years apart? Each Hindu holy book was not written over a span of over 1300 years! Your assertions definately do not show you as one who is knowledgable in other religions. Hypocrisy, once again. What a shock!

It was NOT on a Christian program that I overheard that the Bible is the book with the most fulfilled prophecies. It was on (can't remember the name) the show on PAX with the guy from Law and Order hosting it. It is hardly a Christian show.

One more BIG problem that none of you have addressed yet. No matter who's theory on evolution you are using (wow - there are

 

Earth - it was no longer Judaism's "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," it was "turn the other cheek." Hence, CHRISTIANITY does not encourage the killing of other religous peoples.....you know, there IS a difference between Christianity and Judaism. It's just pretty depressing that you mock my religion and you didn't even know that.

*Yawn* nothing new, the same philosophy existed in Hinduism and Buddhism way before Jesus came along. Hinduism and Buddhism do not encourage the killing of other religious people.


One more BIG problem that none of you have addressed yet. No matter who's theory on evolution you are using (wow - there are different theories on evolution, just like there are different Christian denominations who can't agree on minor technicalities....somehow you only critique the denominations. Bias, no doubt), all Evolutionary theories (to my knowledge) refer to the Primordial Soup as the place from which the first living cells originated.

Could you point out these different types of evolution? I'd be quite interested in this different denomination, LOL.

 

This same question can be said for the Big Bang "Theory."

Actually there is proof of this that has been discovered by observing space. I'll find the exact explanation of this (I don't remember the exact terminology) but I'm sure somebody here knows what I am taking about.

Or do you not believe in it because your "all-knowing" book didn't say so?

 

The microwave background radiation was hotter 2.5 billion yrs ago. This was recently found by observatories in Germany, India, and France.

Here's an article on it:

Fundamental Big Bang Prediction Is Finally Verified

Be warned, this is evilutionist science!

 

thanks Ender.

 

No problem.

 

"Why do no famous Evolutionists come into a debate with any Creationists?"

Because it's really rather pointless. You don't see adults debating the existance of Santa with 6 year olds. Now that may sound harsh, but for alot of people a literal interpratation of the Genesis story is as far out there as the idea of some old man giving everyone presents if they're good.

"If you are going to defend Hinduism, a religion which STILL encourages the killing of people of other religions"

Eh? Now I'm sure there's Hindu fanatics just like there are of every religion, but I don't think it said anything in the Hindu scriptures about being happy to dash the babies of your enemies against rocks(Think that's not in the bible? Psalm 137 verse 9)

But this all totally off topic and has nothing to do with evolution, so why are you talking about it? Hell why am I talking about?

 

Once again, you add to my words.

I did not even SAY the word "Buddhist" in my entire report. I said many other religions. I have to admit that you all share one strongpoint. The ability to corrupt one's words into an entirely different meaning.

Hinduism does encourage killing. Where's the proof, you ask?

Well, there's a little bit of land called Kashmir that should be basic knowledge for anyone who has passed Freshmen level World History. Muslims and Hindus have killed over this land for 100's of years, and they obviously are not restrained by their religions.

If you knew even the slightest bit of information on Christianity, you WOULD know that there is more than one denomination. Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Charismatic, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Non-denominational are just a few of the hundreds of Christian denominations.

Different evolutionary theories abound. Some believe that evolution is linear, others believe it is not. Some believe that evolution continues in all animals today, others believe that some animals (crocodile, turtles) no longer evolve. Some evolutionists believe in the big bang, and others do not.

And you believe that evolution is right because your "all knowing" scientists say so?

And now we have Peez saying I shouldn't assume that a soul exists! Has 9/11 faded out of your minds so quickly?

The reason for this "echo" in space is not from the Big Bang theory. When God spoke and said "let there be light," He created by merely SPEAKING! This "echo" is the result of that sudden energy. Or do you have more than one fact to back you up? That radiation and "echo" do not point to either Evolution or Creation flat out. Any one can claim what they believe to be true. I'm staking my claim on God. Explain to me again how the Big Bang Theory better explains this.




I'm still awaiting your answer to how primordial soup is somehow a good, scientific hypothesis. What, you mean you don't know?

Seems like somebody is basing their beliefs in the truths of science on faith...... If you believe what Evolutionists say, you have faith in what they say. Didn't you say that faith and science can't co-exist?

The contradictions and conflicts in evolution science still amaze me.

Evolutionist - "To quote Darth Vader.....'There is no conflict.'" Tell me how there isn't a contradiction in the whole belief of primordial soup, please!

I have answered your questions according to the truth that I believe, and the contradictions of evolution.

I await your answers..... if you know, please reveal your knowledge.

*Yawn. Just because beliefs overlap doesn't prove originality. Polytheism was started LONG before Hinduism. Judaism and Christianity began Monotheism.....that's original.

 

"Muslims and Hindus have killed over this land for 100's of years, and they obviously are not restrained by their religions."

Yeah and Christians have been killing eachother over Ireland for years too. You gonna tell me Christianity encourages killing?


"Some evolutionists believe in the big bang, and others do not."

The Big Bang ain't part of the theory of evolution. Evelution is biological, big bang is astronomical.

"And now we have Peez saying I shouldn't assume that a soul exists! Has 9/11 faded out of your minds so quickly?"

What does 9/11 have to do with whether we have souls or not?

 

Well, there's a little bit of land called Kashmir that should be basic knowledge for anyone who has passed Freshmen level World History. Muslims and Hindus have killed over this land for 100's of years, and they obviously are not restrained by their religions.

Could you point out the Hindu scripture that says to kill people of other religions for me? Or should we judge Christian scripture by the Crusades and the various Inquisitions?

Different evolutionary theories abound. Some believe that evolution is linear, others believe it is not. Some believe that evolution continues in all animals today, others believe that some animals (crocodile, turtles) no longer evolve. Some evolutionists believe in the big bang, and others do not.

LOL, this just demonstrates your ignorance of evolution.


The reason for this "echo" in space is not from the Big Bang theory. When God spoke and said "let there be light," He created by merely SPEAKING! This "echo" is the result of that sudden energy. Or do you have more than one fact to back you up? That radiation and "echo" do not point to either Evolution or Creation flat out. Any one can claim what they believe to be true. I'm staking my claim on God. Explain to me again how the Big Bang Theory better explains this.

Wow, god must have a big mouth.


Evolutionist - "To quote Darth Vader.....'There is no conflict.'" Tell me how there isn't a contradiction in the whole belief of primordial soup, please!

Your ignorance of evolution is astounding. You have once again confused abiogenesis with evolution.


We're still waiting for the evidence for Young Earth creationism. Attacking evolution with old refuted arguments doesn't mean creationism is correct. Anytime you're ready to present this peer reviewed evidence go right ahead.

 

"Or should we judge Christian scripture by the Crusades and the various Inquisitions?"

They weren't real christians.

(thought i'd beat someone to the punch! )