4 Legged Snake Discovered.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Achilles92x

I agree, some of it is simply nit picky and antagonistic for the sake of it.

Still... many other things can't be ignored.

If you don't like the source I've used to demonstrate many of the Bible's inaccuracies, you're more than welcomed to find one of your own!

Did you or the author ever stop to think about the fact that there is not one single kind of information or truth?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Sorry, by multiple kinds of truths, I mean that truth is not simply confined to literalness or historicity.

Perhaps "truth" was not the best word.

Think of it like:
Historical truth
Moral truth
symbolic truth

Perhaps a better word would have been the "message" in which the truth is articulated.

Read my above reply for more elaboration on what I meant.

Some truths/messages answer the "how," some answer the "why" or the "who."

My apologies for the confusion.

a reply to: Achilles92x

The Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books written by different authors, at different time periods, to different audiences, and with different messages and intentions.

So, not the 'Word of God', then. Just a bunch of conflicting stories by different authors. Fair enough.

There is also not one single form of truth, there are many forms.

Are they in conflict with one another? If so, how can we be sure any of these truths are true?

Not all Christians will agree with me.

Indeed, it would be quite difficult to find one who did.

Assuming modern science is true, what good would it do for God to articulate the exact means by which he created the universe? Those concepts and the time frame behind it would be so far beyond the people's head thousands of years ago that it would only serve to confuse them and hinder God's message.

So why didn't He wait till we'd savvied up a bit and then deliver His message? After all, salvation is supposed to be retroactive, what with the Harrowing of Hell and all the rest of it. A couple of thousand years wouldn't make that much of a difference.

In short, no. It does not need to be all or nothing literal or not. That is ONLY your arbitrary demand placed on it. But hey, whatever it takes to make the message fly right over your head so that you don't have to believe (because inside, deep down, you simply don't want to), right?

If thinking that makes you feel better, far be it from me to dissuade you.

originally posted by: therevford
This is great news. The fossil must be pre Garden of Eden and the great apple crimes of biblical history
So the snake would still be part of the talking snake family. This will confirm the bibles history is correct.

Well maybe not.

No it won't because in the bible the garden of eden came before.

The bible doesn't mention a snake with legs as far as i record.

Oh and the snake probably didn't used it's legs for nothing, just like a T Rex i believe.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago? The Biblical reference may not prove that God is real or anything like that, but it does prove that it didn't take millions of years for these snakes to evolve. The question is why do we have this reference at 6,000 years ago, yet science says this happened millions of years ago. Where did the writer of this fairy tale get that kind of information?

He took a guess. That's what myths do. They reference things that may not be real. They invent reasons for things they do not understand and attribute it to gods. Look throughout all of mythology you see the same thing. If these snakes didn't exist 6,000 years ago then the bible reference couldn't possible be real. Another explanation is that they observed certain lizards that slightly resembled snakes and invented the explanation.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Barcs
this trait was lost by snakes like fifty million years before man walked the earth so the bible's guess is still wrong.

If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago? The Biblical reference may not prove that God is real or anything like that, but it does prove that it didn't take millions of years for these snakes to evolve. The question is why do we have this reference at 6,000 years ago, yet science says this happened millions of years ago. Where did the writer of this fairy tale get that kind of information?

I'm not trying to debate evolution here, we can leave that for a different thread.

Let's look closer at your proof, verses the proof that the scientific community has.

Science has: Actual physical evidence in both DNA and in the fossil record that directly links snakes to having legs, and those legs disappearing 10's of millions of years ago. There as been no fossil records or any other evidence that suggests snakes had functional legs any time after that previously observed date.

Of course, we can always find another fossil that shows a specimen of a later date which still had functional legs, that doesn't prove anything wrong or right, it just makes our description of a specific evolutionary trait more accurate.

The Bible Has: Hearsay. That's it. There is no physical proof of anything, we have no direct evidence of its claims about this topic. That alone is why we cannot consider it an accurate portrayal of a biological trait. There simply is nothing but writings.

Conversely, we don't believe Kraken's, Minotaur's, Fairies, or any other mythological creatures exist simply because people have written about them, sometimes written "as a matter of fact". Nevertheless, these writings have the exact amount of evidence that the bible has with it's claims on it's own mythical creatures. Which is absolutely none.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Achilles92x

The Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books written by different authors, at different time periods, to different audiences, and with different messages and intentions.

So, not the 'Word of God', then. Just a bunch of conflicting stories by different authors. Fair enough.

There is also not one single form of truth, there are many forms.

Are they in conflict with one another? If so, how can we be sure any of these truths are true?

Not all Christians will agree with me.

Indeed, it would be quite difficult to find one who did.

Assuming modern science is true, what good would it do for God to articulate the exact means by which he created the universe? Those concepts and the time frame behind it would be so far beyond the people's head thousands of years ago that it would only serve to confuse them and hinder God's message.

So why didn't He wait till we'd savvied up a bit and then deliver His message? After all, salvation is supposed to be retroactive, what with the Harrowing of Hell and all the rest of it. A couple of thousand years wouldn't make that much of a difference.

In short, no. It does not need to be all or nothing literal or not. That is ONLY your arbitrary demand placed on it. But hey, whatever it takes to make the message fly right over your head so that you don't have to believe (because inside, deep down, you simply don't want to), right?

If thinking that makes you feel better, far be it from me to dissuade you.

You jump to too many conclusions. There is not a single Christian that would deny that the Gospels, for example, were written to different audiences.
The audiences affect what is and isn't included, and what's emphasized, in order to best articulate the message to the audience and what is relevant to them.

This does not take away from it being the Word of God in any way, shape, or form. It does not make them contradict one another.

I was an atheist when I was younger, and I used to have the same kind of reasoning and arguments that you and others on here display. How honest are you being with yourself? How honestly are you examining these texts and their authenticity compared to other texts of antiquity? Do you still quack the old "the Bible has been edited and changed thousands of times" atheist rhetoric, or have you critically examined and educated yourself on the practice of textual criticism?

Regardless, your requirement that every book in the Bible be all or nothing literal or not is simply your arbitrary, biased demand. You have no argument against that?

I also clarified above what I meant by "truths." My apologies that my diction was not ideal. I was simply referring to the means in which a message or truth is articulated, that not all things are intended to speak a literal or historical truth, but rather a symbolic or moral message/truth.

Why didn't He wait a few thousand years? That's not really a question I can answer, nor is it really a legitimate question to ask. So you're telling me that it would have been better if God gave the revelation of Genesis now, but included all the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe? That sounds very unremarkable for God to tell us something now that we already understand.
I would venture to say the answer is the precise "how" of the process of creation is irrelevant God's message. That story is intended to say "who" and "why." THAT impacts our lives. The existence of a God who created us and loves us, wants to spend eternity with us, a God of love--that is relevant. That impacts our lives, changes us and augments us for the better if we let it. The Big Bang and Evolution do nothing of the sort.

I can already sense the "is he really a God of love because the Old Testament blah blah blah" coming. I would recommend understanding the Old Testament in full historical and linguistic context and re examining those stories if you ever feel up for the task. I could try to explain it, but I think I can see how futile it would be.

a reply to: Achilles92x

Why didn't He wait a few thousand years? That's not really a question I can answer, nor is it really a legitimate question to ask. So you're telling me that it would have been better if God gave the revelation of Genesis now, but included all the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe? That sounds very unremarkable for God to tell us something now that we already understand.
I would venture to say the answer is the precise "how" of the process of creation is irrelevant God's message. That story is intended to say "who" and "why." THAT impacts our lives. The existence of a God who created us and loves us, wants to spend eternity with us, a God of love--that is relevant. That impacts our lives, changes us and augments us for the better if we let it. The Big Bang and Evolution do nothing of the sort.

You sound like a backstreet boys song. "I don't care who you are, where your from, what you did, as long as you love me." Are you so desperate for a cosmic daddy that you will take him with the whiskey bottle and genocidal tendencies?

how come nobody is picking up on the fact the article says there is a salamander in the snake? salamander=legs

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Achilles92x

Why didn't He wait a few thousand years? That's not really a question I can answer, nor is it really a legitimate question to ask. So you're telling me that it would have been better if God gave the revelation of Genesis now, but included all the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe? That sounds very unremarkable for God to tell us something now that we already understand.
I would venture to say the answer is the precise "how" of the process of creation is irrelevant God's message. That story is intended to say "who" and "why." THAT impacts our lives. The existence of a God who created us and loves us, wants to spend eternity with us, a God of love--that is relevant. That impacts our lives, changes us and augments us for the better if we let it. The Big Bang and Evolution do nothing of the sort.

You sound like a backstreet boys song. "I don't care who you are, where your from, what you did, as long as you love me." Are you so desperate for a cosmic daddy that you will take him with the whiskey bottle and genocidal tendencies?

Lmao. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of the messages being articulated in OT stories (and don't necessarily regard all of them as intended to be fully literal/historical). After all, I don't need to refer to God as a "cosmic daddy" and make a veiled insult about someone being "so desperate for Him." If you're out of anything intelligent to say, I could do without childish comments like that. It's alright if you can't provide an actual rebuttal! No need to creep closer to ad hominem.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Achilles92x

Why didn't He wait a few thousand years? That's not really a question I can answer, nor is it really a legitimate question to ask. So you're telling me that it would have been better if God gave the revelation of Genesis now, but included all the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe? That sounds very unremarkable for God to tell us something now that we already understand.
I would venture to say the answer is the precise "how" of the process of creation is irrelevant God's message. That story is intended to say "who" and "why." THAT impacts our lives. The existence of a God who created us and loves us, wants to spend eternity with us, a God of love--that is relevant. That impacts our lives, changes us and augments us for the better if we let it. The Big Bang and Evolution do nothing of the sort.

You sound like a backstreet boys song. "I don't care who you are, where your from, what you did, as long as you love me." Are you so desperate for a cosmic daddy that you will take him with the whiskey bottle and genocidal tendencies?

Lmao. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of the messages being articulated in OT stories (and don't necessarily regard all of them as intended to be fully literal/historical). After all, I don't need to refer to God as a "cosmic daddy" and make a veiled insult about someone being "so desperate for Him." If you're out of anything intelligent to say, I could do without childish comments like that. It's alright if you can't provide an actual rebuttal! No need to creep closer to ad hominem.

What rebuttal do I need? You are crediting the fundamental forces with anthropomorphic qualities because it assuages your sense of cosmic humanity. That's it's own punch line right there. "How many gods does it take to change a lightbulb? None, because lightbulbs are unnatural and witchcraft but a talking snake isn't!"

And volcanoes are angry earth gods, lightning storms are the work of sky Vikings with magic hammers, and the stars are the spirits of ancient Aztec warriors who were consumed by their patron deity. What's not to laugh at? I don't need to attack the court jester to prove he is a fool. The Supreme Court and United Kingdom educational system have already made their opinions known on that front. Believe as you will, the Care Bears are not coming to save us, no matter how many four legged snakes you misrepresent.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Achilles92x

Why didn't He wait a few thousand years? That's not really a question I can answer, nor is it really a legitimate question to ask. So you're telling me that it would have been better if God gave the revelation of Genesis now, but included all the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe? That sounds very unremarkable for God to tell us something now that we already understand.
I would venture to say the answer is the precise "how" of the process of creation is irrelevant God's message. That story is intended to say "who" and "why." THAT impacts our lives. The existence of a God who created us and loves us, wants to spend eternity with us, a God of love--that is relevant. That impacts our lives, changes us and augments us for the better if we let it. The Big Bang and Evolution do nothing of the sort.

You sound like a backstreet boys song. "I don't care who you are, where your from, what you did, as long as you love me." Are you so desperate for a cosmic daddy that you will take him with the whiskey bottle and genocidal tendencies?

Lmao. Perhaps I just have a better understanding of the messages being articulated in OT stories (and don't necessarily regard all of them as intended to be fully literal/historical). After all, I don't need to refer to God as a "cosmic daddy" and make a veiled insult about someone being "so desperate for Him." If you're out of anything intelligent to say, I could do without childish comments like that. It's alright if you can't provide an actual rebuttal! No need to creep closer to ad hominem.

What rebuttal do I need? You are crediting the fundamental forces with anthropomorphic qualities because it assuages your sense of cosmic humanity. That's it's own punch line right there. "How many gods does it take to change a lightbulb? None, because lightbulbs are unnatural and witchcraft but a talking snake isn't!"

And volcanoes are angry earth gods, lightning storms are the work of sky Vikings with magic hammers, and the stars are the spirits of ancient Aztec warriors who were consumed by their patron deity. What's not to laugh at? I don't need to attack the court jester to prove he is a fool. The Supreme Court and United Kingdom educational system have already made their opinions known on that front. Believe as you will, the Care Bears are not coming to save us, no matter how many four legged snakes you misrepresent.

There is not a single thing you have just said that has any relevance to me or my beliefs. I think ATS would be a better community if the atheists like you on here that are total A-Holes to everyone else would learn to respect people. What do I mean? I mean the regular bunch of you present a huge turn off for people who want to have legitimate discussion instead of having their views twisted into strawman for you to parade around like a child with the straw man's head on a spike.

I do not believe God has any anthropomorphic qualities. Believing that God exists and that God is the ultimate intelligence, consciousness, and love is not stating that he has anthropomorphic qualities. We were made in HIS image. Our intelligence, consciousness, and ability to love greatly are a reflection of HIM, not vice versa, in my beliefs.

I said absolutely nothing about agreeing with the four legged snake being evidence for creationism. I believe in evolution through intelligent design.

Seriously, all you just did was belittle a strawman form of me. Who are you even arguing against? Because it sure doesn't seem to be me.

You don't need to attack the court jester to prove he's a fool? Ah, yet you're attacking me, which makes sense considering I'm not the court jester. You're more akin to a court jester, turning concepts into strawman and caricatures to make fun of them. Court jesters are only worth while when they make a fool of themselves, that's the only way ANYONE would listen to them. They need to trivialize and over simplify, misconstrue things, in order to successfully belittle and poke fun at them. Perhaps that's the reason why you argue with strawmen? To be listened to. To feel successful and fulfilled in your futile, irrelevant arguments?

originally posted by: Achilles92x
There is not a single thing you have just said that has any relevance to me or my beliefs. I think ATS would be a better community if the atheists like you on here that are total A-Holes to everyone else would learn to respect people. What do I mean? I mean the regular bunch of you present a huge turn off for people who want to have legitimate discussion instead of having their views twisted into strawman for you to parade around like a child with the straw man's head on a spike.

I'm not sure which topics you're referring to, but I find that the majority of ignorant, misinformation, strawman OP, bigotted topics regarding some sort of reference back to religious foundations stem almost entirely from religious individuals themselves.

This topic being a perfect example for that.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I do not believe God has any anthropomorphic qualities. Believing that God exists and that God is the ultimate intelligence, consciousness, and love is not stating that he has anthropomorphic qualities.

Fair enough

originally posted by: Achilles92x
We were made in HIS image.

Oh wait nevermind, there's the anthropomorphic qualities...

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I believe in evolution through intelligent design.

That doesn't make any sense. Intelligent design is not involved in Evolution what so ever (and vice verse).

ID = a belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolution = Change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations through natural processes such as Mating, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and so forth.

Unless of course you meant to mean "I accept Evolution, but it is my belief that a high power is guiding it in some way". In which case that is entirely possible.

a reply to: Barcs

What a crappy rebuttal, seriously. The reference is right there in your face and best you can up with was that they made it up give me a break. You can't prove they didn't exist 6,000 years ago, now can you? Oh, wait, you can because science says so.

a reply to: Ghost147

Get you head out the ground. Science has no proof what so ever, sure you have a fossil record now. But neither you or anyone else can convince me that you know for a fact that it is 10's of millions of years old I don't care how long of thesis you write to try and prove it. It will never be proof until you travel back in time and bring back the video. All science has and ever will have is pure speculation, you'll never figure out how old it is.

Science is great when it comes to math and building rockets, but they need to lay off the evolution crap, anyone who actually believes that crap is more brainwashed than religious folks. The got more fairy tales than all the religions combined.

They have never observed the creation of the universe, but swear on their life that's how it happened. They have never observed one species changing to the next, but swear that's how it happened. It's ridiculous, but of course, it's better than saying God did it right? Who cares if they can't prove it, just as long as God didn't do it they will believe anything.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Achilles92x
There is not a single thing you have just said that has any relevance to me or my beliefs. I think ATS would be a better community if the atheists like you on here that are total A-Holes to everyone else would learn to respect people. What do I mean? I mean the regular bunch of you present a huge turn off for people who want to have legitimate discussion instead of having their views twisted into strawman for you to parade around like a child with the straw man's head on a spike.

I'm not sure which topics you're referring to, but I find that the majority of ignorant, misinformation, strawman OP, bigotted topics regarding some sort of reference back to religious foundations stem almost entirely from religious individuals themselves.

This topic being a perfect example for that.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I do not believe God has any anthropomorphic qualities. Believing that God exists and that God is the ultimate intelligence, consciousness, and love is not stating that he has anthropomorphic qualities.

Fair enough

originally posted by: Achilles92x
We were made in HIS image.

Oh wait nevermind, there's the anthropomorphic qualities...

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I believe in evolution through intelligent design.

That doesn't make any sense. Intelligent design is not involved in Evolution what so ever (and vice verse).

ID = a belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolution = Change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations through natural processes such as Mating, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and so forth.

Unless of course you meant to mean "I accept Evolution, but it is my belief that a high power is guiding it in some way". In which case that is entirely possible.

The statement about being made in God's image does not imply anthropomorphic qualities. This is partially due to my lack of explanation, but also could have been remedied by your own search into what the "image of God" actually means. Some have taken it to mean that we look like what God looks like--sure, that would be anthropomorphic. The vast majority of biblical scholars however take the "image and likeness of God" to mean something else. Some interpret it as "having dominion over creation" because of the verse that follows. Others argue that it is intelligence, love, or consciousness. Hell, it could be all of that. THAT is what i mean by image and likeness of God.

Could God manifest in the form of a massive human being in the clouds with a beard that atheists jest about? I mean, I suppose.. But he certainly is not restricted to such a form.

The overarching hypothesis of intelligent design would include evolution and natural selection guided by a divine force, God, unless I am mistaken. And yes, that is what i am referring to. Actually, I don't have a preference for either purely intelligent design without any natural selection, versus evolution by natural selection guided by God. I really don't find them much different. Intelligent design with natural selection still in play can certainly be a possibility--it simply would mean that the Creator "programmed"--in a sense--natural selection. Regardless, the origin or the universe and diversity of species has little to no significance on my daily life, nor does it have anything to do with the most important parts of my faith.

Thank you for being civil and engaging in discussion. Hopefully I cleared my statements up.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147

Get you head out the ground. Science has no proof what so ever, sure you have a fossil record now. But neither you or anyone else can convince me that you know for a fact that it is 10's of millions of years old I don't care how long of thesis you write to try and prove it. It will never be proof until you travel back in time and bring back the video. All science has and ever will have is pure speculation, you'll never figure out how old it is.

Science is great when it comes to math and building rockets, but they need to lay off the evolution crap, anyone who actually believes that crap is more brainwashed than religious folks. The got more fairy tales than all the religions combined.

They have never observed the creation of the universe, but swear on their life that's how it happened. They have never observed one species changing to the next, but swear that's how it happened. It's ridiculous, but of course, it's better than saying God did it right? Who cares if they can't prove it, just as long as God didn't do it they will believe anything.

Really though, I think if everyone is being honest with themselves and unbiased, abiogenesis is by far the most absurd speculation in science.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Oh man, I clicked in here thinking they found a 4 legged politician.

Interesting nonetheless

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Achilles92x
There is not a single thing you have just said that has any relevance to me or my beliefs. I think ATS would be a better community if the atheists like you on here that are total A-Holes to everyone else would learn to respect people. What do I mean? I mean the regular bunch of you present a huge turn off for people who want to have legitimate discussion instead of having their views twisted into strawman for you to parade around like a child with the straw man's head on a spike.

I'm not sure which topics you're referring to, but I find that the majority of ignorant, misinformation, strawman OP, bigotted topics regarding some sort of reference back to religious foundations stem almost entirely from religious individuals themselves.

This topic being a perfect example for that.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I do not believe God has any anthropomorphic qualities. Believing that God exists and that God is the ultimate intelligence, consciousness, and love is not stating that he has anthropomorphic qualities.

Fair enough

originally posted by: Achilles92x
We were made in HIS image.

Oh wait nevermind, there's the anthropomorphic qualities...

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I believe in evolution through intelligent design.

That doesn't make any sense. Intelligent design is not involved in Evolution what so ever (and vice verse).

ID = a belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolution = Change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations through natural processes such as Mating, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and so forth.

Unless of course you meant to mean "I accept Evolution, but it is my belief that a high power is guiding it in some way". In which case that is entirely possible.

In regards to my comment about atheist being rude on ATS, I see examples of it on basically any religion/theological thread. Both sides use strawmen arguments, I won't deny that. I don't like when either use them. I am a non-denominational Christian, but i regard the "how" of the creation of the universe and origin of species to be very insignificant in my life and in my salvation. I feel as if Creationists focus too much on the topic, or worry that the integrity of the Bible is demolished if it didn't happen word for word as Genesis states. Unfortunately, it seems many atheists believe the bible is useless because Genesis does not match science. I've mentioned before on ATS that I am convinced Genesis serves the purpose of answering the "Who" and "Why," questions, and could not even have begun to delve into the exactness of "how" given the time period the OT was written during. God's message doesn't depend on the "how" and certainly isn't any more strengthened by it. Science can attempt to explain the "how," and I have no qualms with that. God's message was one of purpose and love--science cannot provide that.

So yea, both sides use strawmen. There is a very numerous, vocal atheist group on here that seems very ready to bash all things religious and religious people, though. I won't deny that there are religious people like that here too... But they certainly aren't as vocal and numerous

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
Science has no proof what so ever,

Ok... I'm listening...

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
sure you have a fossil record now.

Oh, I guess you answered your first statement

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
But neither you or anyone else can convince me that you know for a fact that it is 10's of millions of years old I don't care how long of thesis you write to try and prove it.

I'm well aware you are incapable of listening to reason. Nevertheless, could you explain why the geological time scale is so accurate? You do realize you can do very simplistic tests that show sedimentary particulates accumulate even in a cup of glass in your home, right? Not to mention that we have things such as ice and the knowledge of how long specific sediments take to accumulate in order to determine time scales. And then there is our knowledge of certain elements such as potassium and carbon and their rate of decay.

You know, basic math and observation skills.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
It will never be proof until you travel back in time and bring back the video.

Yup! Because nothing in life is accurate unless it's observed by a person in real time. Oh wait, that means we cannot actually determine that the Earth revolves around the Sun. No one has actually sat out in space and watched it occur, so that can't possible be accurate. Screw mathematics! We need personal observational accounts!

Guess we have to release all the inmates that have had no witnesses to the actual actions taken place. DNA evidence you say? Hogwash!!!! The only way to prove something is if someone stood there watching the murder take place and every action that lead up to the murder and everything after!

How long is it from your house to mine in a straight line? I guess I have to walk it and bring a tape measure because there is no possible way I could prove how may KM or Miles it will be unless we have personal observational evidence!

Perhaps it's time you step into reality and figure out how the world around you works. Or does the world even exist as far as you've seen because you haven't personally observed every nanometer of it? In fact, I don't even exist because you haven't personally met me to my knowledge. Guess there is no way to prove that I exist unless you personally observe me.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
All science has and ever will have is pure speculation, you'll never figure out how old it is.

To the day? Probably not. But, our other forms of calculation, especially when they are all combined, are pretty damn accurate. In some cases, within 98% accurate or more, depending on what we're calculating.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
Science is great when it comes to math and building rockets, but they need to lay off the evolution crap, anyone who actually believes that crap is more brainwashed than religious folks.

Those darn Scientists! Oh wait, you know what is involved in Evolution, mathematics, chemistry and geology. Guess you DO think their methods are acceptable.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
They have never observed the creation of the universe, but swear on their life that's how it happened.

Right, because Biological Evolution has anything to do with the creation of the universe? At least read the Wikipedia page before attempting to confront the subject. Also, there is no scientist alive that would claim absolute knowledge or absolute accuracy about anything scientific without being totally dishonest. Science isn't about finding the truth or absolute 100% answers. Science only deals with percentages; as in "Well we've observed this naturally occurring phenomenon, and we have all this evidence that supports our hypothesis on how this phenomenon LIKELY functions, so this is our conclusion. SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON FURTHER EVIDENCE".

That's right, all information in science is subject to change. Why? Because we don't claim to know everything. We have evidence that supports our hypothesis, if further evidence comes up that counter's that hypothesis, then that hypothesis changes according to the new evidence in order to make our description more accurate.

Infallible? No. Just more accurate. In fact, a scientific hypothesis MUST BE FALSIFIABLE, in order to be scientific in the first place!

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147
They have never observed one species changing to the next, but swear that's how it happened. It's ridiculous, but of course, it's better than saying God did it right? Who cares if they can't prove it, just as long as God didn't do it they will believe anything.

Yeah. That darn god always getting in the way! By the way, we have observed one species change from one to the next. It's called speciation and has been personally observed many times. The only issue is that you continue to plug your ears and go "LALALALALA" because you either 1) cannot understand the information 2) refuse to accept it because it counters your beliefs 3) because you're intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
The statement about being made in God's image does not imply anthropomorphic qualities. This is partially due to my lack of explanation, but also could have been remedied by your own search into what the "image of God" actually means. Some have taken it to mean that we look like what God looks like--sure, that would be anthropomorphic. The vast majority of biblical scholars however take the "image and likeness of God" to mean something else. Some interpret it as "having dominion over creation" because of the verse that follows. Others argue that it is intelligence, love, or consciousness. Hell, it could be all of that. THAT is what i mean by image and likeness of God.

I see now what you meant to say

originally posted by: Achilles92x
The overarching hypothesis of intelligent design would include evolution and natural selection guided by a divine force, God, unless I am mistaken.

According to Discovery.org "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media)."
Link

The people who came up with it staunchly appose both Natural Selection and the rest of Evolution. It's basically a dishonest way of making a pseudo-scientific theory and masking it as a real scientific theory (in which not a single scientists recognizes it as an actual scientific theory).

originally posted by: Achilles92x
And yes, that is what i am referring to.

Yes, I figured you meant it in the way you've just described it, rather than the Discovery Institute's version.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
Actually, I don't have a preference for either purely intelligent design without any natural selection, versus evolution by natural selection guided by God. I really don't find them much different.

Go to the link I presented previously. It's the Discovery Institutes website. The two concepts (Evolution, and Intelligent design in the way I just described it) are impossible to be mutually accepted. They simply are two completely different things.

If you have anymore questions on either topic, I can answer if you wish.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
Intelligent design with natural selection still in play can certainly be a possibility--it simply would mean that the Creator "programmed"--in a sense--natural selection.

I agree. It is certainly possible. Although not provable, nor disprovable.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
Regardless, the origin or the universe and diversity of species has little to no significance on my daily life, nor does it have anything to do with the most important parts of my faith.

Thank you for being civil and engaging in discussion. Hopefully I cleared my statements up.

Thank you for being civil as well

The reason I enter these debates is because many ill informed, or intellectually dishonest, or possibly insane individuals who are against Evolution, or the scientific community entirely, are also very loud, prodding individuals. They want their beliefs to be considered on par with science in every regard, and completely reject any information no matter how obvious or simplistic it is, so long as it doesn't abide by their world views.

Those loud individuals are less respectful than you, and feel it's their militant right to push those beliefs, no matter how obscure they may be, into the public as an alternative option, backed up by no evidence what so ever, despite the opposing view having mounds of evidence.

It's either a matter of lack of education, or simply a lack of intelligence that leads them to these conclusions.

Personally, these types of actions seem to slow the progression of humanity, which is why I enter these arguments.