Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

Originally posted by Saurus
Stuff1

Let me draw your attention to a profound question asked by a 7-year old in this thread: Question (posted by VIKINGANT)

"If God made man and all the animals when he made the world, and dinosaurs were extinct before man was around then when did he make the dinosaurs and why aren’t they in the bible?"

Would you care to give your opinion?

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, they are called dragons the word Dinosaur was only recently created

www.answersingenesis.org...

Now here is where it will get interesting. The age of the earth is 6000 years. Now most people won't even read the links I have and will automatically start ranting. However, there are many problems with the dating methods,. And the problem is NOT the math. It is the assumptions. If I assume the flood happened (another conversation, which there is much evidence for) If there was a worldwide flood the earth was different after the flood than 6000 years can be used for these methods

Radiometric Dating (Uranium to Lead)

Assumption one: The the decay rate has always been the same (How do they know that)
One theory by creationist is that during the flood there was tons of radiometric decay (1.5 Billion years worth at today's rates) we know that water is the best defense against radioactivity so the ark could have been shielded. So we do not know that the rates have always been the same.

Assumption Two: No Lead to start with just Uranium (how do they know that)
Assumption Three: All lead is from decay of uranium (how do they know that)

Creationist assume that 1.5 Billion years worth at today's rates was created during the flood. Radio Halos are good evidence that there was a flood, and they are good evidence that the decay rate was not always the same. They are created when Uranium decays to lead.
According to the Evolutionary theory there should always be 8 alpha particles (therefore always 8 halos). Therefore you should always see 8 rings in lead. However we see all the options. One through eight is available.


Examples of No Radio Halos
www.answersingenesis.org...

Study on Halos
www.answersingenesis.org...

They believe this may have happened as the plutonium decayed and was removed from the rock. How was the Atom moved? The heat and radioactivity from the flood could have moved it away (water would have shielded Noah from radioactivity. What is evolutions theory?


Next Post problems with other dating methods

[edit on 29-5-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by Saurus
Stuff1

Let me draw your attention to a profound question asked by a 7-year old in this thread: Question (posted by VIKINGANT)

"If God made man and all the animals when he made the world, and dinosaurs were extinct before man was around then when did he make the dinosaurs and why aren’t they in the bible?"

Would you care to give your opinion?

Part two of a three part reply

Radiocarbon Dating

Carbon 14 dating is used to to date living (organic matter). It cannot be used to date rocks. It can be used to date diamonds and coal because diamonds used to be organic matter. There are three varieties (isotopes) of carbon c12, c13, c14. 12 and 13 are stable however 14 is unstable meaning it is radioactive or decays. When it decays it will become a different element. Dating can only start on an organism after it dies. When it is alive organisms take in c14. The c12 does not decay because it is stable. Today when an animal dies it will have 1 c14 atom for every 1 trillion c12 atoms. Over time that amount will begin to change. Scientist try to date objects by taking the following information
1. Starting Amount of c14 (unknown)
2. Current Amount of c14 (known)
3. Half Life of c14 (known)


All living things take in Carbon, With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 60,000 years (we know this because half life is 5,700). Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years. Coal has been taken from all around the world and it has carbon in it, and from all layers of the strata!! How can this be if everything over 60,000 years should have no carbon. Carbon14, if it is true, strongly supports young earth

Link to RATE group findingswww.answersingenesis.org...
Link on its problems www.creationscience.com...




Potassium Argon Dating
Assumption - No Argon originally (how do you know that), Also assume that half life is always the same

Potassium becomes Argon overtime. Assumption radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed. This has been refuted at this link www.icr.org...

There are many examples of Potassium Argon dating in which we know the actual date but the testing is wrong. For example Mt St Helens (80's) comes up as 2.8 Million years old.



Lead Isocron Method
Newest Method to try and not use assumptions.
static.icr.org...

But still has assumptions. It is when rubidium decays to strontium. Here are the assumptions. Specimens need to be the same age (how do you know that). Isn't the whole point of dating to find the date??????? Again flood not accounted for. Another assumption is that the samples have alway been in a closed system. How do you know that? And lastly you assume that the half life is 10 to the power of 9 half life. How the heck do you know that?

I also had a document from D.DeYoung that said if points do not line up with expected dates than they are considered "contaminated"

Next Post Good reasons to believe earth is young

[edit on 29-5-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by Saurus
Stuff1

Let me draw your attention to a profound question asked by a 7-year old in this thread: Question (posted by VIKINGANT)

"If God made man and all the animals when he made the world, and dinosaurs were extinct before man was around then when did he make the dinosaurs and why aren’t they in the bible?"

Would you care to give your opinion?

Reply Part 3 Good reasons to believe the earth is young

Helium
static.icr.org...

When of the good things about Helium is that its assumption is only that the laws of physics (diffusion rate of an atom) have stayed constant (as opposed to the dating methods which have biological assumptions that could have changed if there was a flood . If that has changed than our ability to diffuse oxygen and food would have to change. An evolutionist would have a hard time making that argument. However you can make the argument that the decay rates (for radiometric) have changed, because this would not affect humans (water from the flood would have shielded Noah)

Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field protects us from Solar Winds. The solar winds hit the north and south poles
en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)

However, the magnetic field is 1/32 of what it used to be. In 4000 years it will be gone. If we go back billions of years we would have a magnetic field as big as the sun.

www.answersingenesis.org...
www.icr.org...

There are many, many, other reasons to believe the earth is young but this is enough for now. I CHALLENGE someone to actually read and without an agenda try to rebut Helium dating without bring philosophy into the conversation.





[edit on 29-5-2009 by stuff1]

Stuff1, you've got it badly wrong.

Evolution is not the conspiracy.
Creationism/Intelligent-Design is the conspiracy.
- A conspiracy to prevent American children from ever learning to take science seriously and think critically.

Instead of learning how to make testable theories based on facts, and collect information to logically test these facts, kids are becoming arrogant lazy smart alecs who believe studying with an open mind would send them to hell.

The creationist/I.D. movement is a tragedy for America, training too many of her citizens in stupidity and opening up the nation to ridicule.

Originally posted by stuff1

Helium
static.icr.org...

When of the good things about Helium is that its assumption is only that the laws of physics (diffusion rate of an atom) have stayed constant (as opposed to the dating methods which have biological assumptions that could have changed if there was a flood . If that has changed than our ability to diffuse oxygen and food would have to change. An evolutionist would have a hard time making that argument. However you can make the argument that the decay rates (for radiometric) have changed, because this would not affect humans (water from the flood would have shielded Noah)

There are many, many, other reasons to believe the earth is young but this is enough for now. I CHALLENGE someone to actually read and without an agenda try to rebut Helium dating without bring philosophy into the conversation.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by stuff1]

I'd rather go after the Magnetic Field BS, but since you are quite clear on your challenge, here are three dissenting views (all lacking philosophy) of this "peer-reviewed" work. Please,....

RATE Group Nonsense
A Response
Fallacies based on bad assumptions


[edit on 29-5-2009 by UrsusMajor]

Originally posted by UrsusMajor

I'd rather go after the Magnetic Field BS, but since you are quite clear on your challenge, here are three dissenting views (all lacking philosophy) of this "peer-reviewed" work. Please,....

RATE Group Nonsense
A Response
Fallacies based on bad assumptions


[edit on 29-5-2009 by UrsusMajor]

Thank you an actual scientific rebuttal!!!! Here are my responses

Argument Number One
The first counter argument is that creationist "claim" that there was more radioactive decay in the past. I agree and stated such in my rebuttal to Uranium to Lead decay. However, your websites misrepresent that claim. They make is sound like we believe the decay rate was CONSTANTLY higher and then magically changed somehow. No we believe that a one time event (global flood) TEMPORARILY accelerated the nuclear decay when the earths crust opened up. I posted evidence for this in the link in my last post citing Radio Halos which are suggestive of this. This concept can be applied to the production of helium as well.

The helium study can be summarized by the following cut and paste (link below)

* There must have been 1.5 billion years worth of decay—at current decay rates
* Large amounts, up to 58%, of the helium are still there
* Yet, as the new RATE experiments (confirmed by new published data from other laboratories) show, helium diffuses so rapidly out of zircon that it should have all but disappeared after about 100,000 years. The large amounts observed are consistent with only 4,000 to 14,000 years of diffusion.

Therefore the decay that produced the helium must have occurred within that time frame. But then how could so much helium have been produced and accumulated in so little time? The best answer seems to be an episode of accelerated nuclear decay, probably during Creation Week or the Flood year, or both.


Second Argument
The second argument is that all life on the planet would have disappeared if we had that much radioactivity. Well yes!!! It was called a world wide flood. Noah survived because the he was insulated from the radiation by water. Even wikipedia will tell you that water will protect you from radiation

en.wikipedia.org...


Third Argument
The third major argument is that they needed to use rock that was at -300c degrees for valid tests, because the test where sensitive. This seems to be another misrepresentation of what the team did. They went 4.3 kilometers down into the earth and have samples ranging from 20c to 313c. However, they then heated them in a mass spectrometer up to 1000 degrees and measured the rates of helium 4 liberated. With that being said the RATE team does not believe that -300c limit to be a problem anyway and makes their case in the link below. It is item number 10

creation.com...


Fourth Argument
And for you last link you say your rebuttal is peer reviewed. A cut and paste from the site says

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient."

So if your peer reviewed study only allows old earth evolutionist than how can the articles you cite complain that the RATE's peer review was only creationist? Its all part of the double standard that inspired me to start this post!!!



[edit on 29-5-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by warrenb
I'd agree with you but as soon as you bring up the bible and that f* BS forget it.

Funny that it's the only solution you can find.

What's so far fetched about alien's seeding life on the planet or perhaps we emigrated here from some other place. Why do you have to have this closed minded approach to explaining our appearance on this planet.

That alone is way more believable than 99.9% of the bible.

Science and theology do not mix

need I bring up the flat earth belief, witch burning, the crusades or the inquisition?

Exactly. I have also found the more I search for "the answer" that quantum mechanics and physics is going to be our greatest tool to find the answers to these type of subjects.

Evolution for me is far to easy an answer for it and creationism is too full of dogma, that any relevance to the creationists answers are clouded by blindness and ignorance. Through my experiences, I can not buy the fact that I came from an ape, nor can I stomach the notion that a tyrant created me just to judge me.

There needs to be a new approach, which there is but it is not nearly expressed often enough. Star for you even though you got warned!

Evolution is in perfect order with a belief in God.

God's system is based on you not knowing for sure if He is there or not. He provides tests of faith throughout your life. What you believe and do shows God how much you love Him. For example, let's look at Deuteronomy 13:1-3:

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him and cleave unto him."

We see from the above teaching that (1) the prophet (sub scientist) was accurate in what he said (wonder) because he proved it (came to pass). We also know that (2) the prophet (sub scientist) is suggesting by his wonder (evolution) proves that God did not make the world like the Bible says (let us go after other gods, which thou has not known, and let us serve them --- aka let us follow after evolution, which is not in the Bible, and do according to its teaching and direction).

What happens when you believe evolution and follow it? Well, you don't pass the love test. God has told you the truth, and you follow something else. Adam and Eve had the same problem. Satan, via the serpent, basically called God a liar by stating that Eve would not die, as God said. Eve chose to believe Satan, which showed that she loved Satan more than God.

There are many indications in the Bible that the world was created quickly, as in 6 days quickly. However, you are free to believe. Believe whatever "prophet" you wish to follow. God does not put a restriction on belief. In fact, that is the very reason he put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, to see if we would love and believe God, or follow our own ways. So, there you have it.

Let's take a look. I'm sure you have seen the small dot in space that is earth. Consider the heavens. When you look skyward at night, try as you might, you will never see a planet as small as Earth. It takes sophisticated equipment to do so. Well, now consider how small that Earth-sized object is in space. Then consider that, of all the knowledge out there, you might know less than 1% of everything. That leaves 99% that you do not know. Consider the possibility that maybe God made the universe. If He did, don't you suppose he could build a planet Earth with the capability for you to believe either way? I mean, if He were to eliminate the fossil record, eliminate anything that can be age-dated past 6000 years, eliminate any old records of human habitation, or in other words anything that could possibly make you believe that this world is older than 6000 years, you would have to believe it was 6000 years old. Right? But He didn't, because He wants to leave you a choice: believe Him, or believe the science. It's about love.
God's love. His love for you, and your love for Him. It always was, and always will be about love.

He leaves you a little hint, tho. In the New Testament, there is the miracle at Cana. A curious verse says "This is the first miracle that Jesus did." I wondered about that verse, and asked God why He put that verse there. I was given to understand after I asked, and the meaning of the verse is this:
God created the Earth in 6 days. You see, Jesus (See John 1) created all things in the beginning, without Him nothing was made that was made. That means He created everything in Genesis, which took 6 days. In the miracle at Cana, he turned 6 waterpots of water into wine, instantly, and aged. He created the Earth aged, too. Otherwise, Adam would not have had food from the trees, for example. The name of the town, Cana, means "to create, build." Take it for what you will, but as you can see, for a Christian, it's God's reassurance that this creation we live in was created instantly, and aged.

So, you see, evolution is scientific evidence. Believe what you wish, and God will see if you love Him and follow Him, or not.

It's up to you.

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning . God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause.

And this here is why these types of threads will never get anywhere. God is the one and only thing that plays by an entirely different set of rules.

Why does god get this opt-out? Is it because otherwise we are left with 2 descriptions of....everything. Neither without a properly explained start, a scenario where opt.A relies on pointing out opt.B doesnt have a provable cause which it needs to have to be true. But opt.A doesnt need one itself...just cause thats how it is mang.

Its kind of like "I know god is real because the bible says so, and I know the bible is true because god wrote it".

Why is it ok for god to just 'be'?

I will only reply with this, if you think evolution is a conspiracy, you need no longer to look because all religions is even more a conspiracy than anything else.

religions are made to tame man...

Best regards.

Loke.

reply to post by Jim Scott


You can be saved whether you believe in Evolution or Creation. However, if you believe in evolution that means you believe in death and suffering before sin??? It also means that for millions of years soul less mongoloids walked the earth until Adam was lucky enough to get a soul

Another problem for a Christian and evolution is logical inconsistency. How can you say Genesis is an allegory and then say that the New Testament is not?

Scripturally you can also make the case that God wants you to recognize his creation and if not he will let you over sin.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

reply to post by HeHasNoName


I know the Bible is true not because God wrote it but because it's prophecy record proves that it is true

Originally posted by stuff1

Originally posted by hybris246

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by Trolloks

 

...anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered mathematically impossible to happen randomly. For example you will never drop red, white and blue paint out of an airplane and get an American Flag so that is something that has a random chance of happening that is over 10 to the power of 50.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this line of argument seems redundant when used solely as proof for intelligent creation. Many things exist in the world that are not intelligently created, but are still practically impossible to recreate by chance.

For example: imagine I bought a small island and wanted to create a recognised flag for it. So suppose I dropped red, white and blue paint out of an aeroplane on to the island, photographed the splatter it created, and then used that splatter as the official flag insignia. Suppose I then asked you to try and re-create my flag insignia by dropping paint out of an aeroplane. You wouldn't be able to exactly re-create my flag by chance; in fact, you'd have just as much chance of inadvertantly matching the American flag. Admittedly, what you end up with might look similar to my flag, but only because our brains would classify both as abstract. I also acknowledge that an intelligent mover is needed to throw the paint out the aeroplane, but that's another argument.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

Paint going splat on the ground is different than comparing an intelligently designed American flag.

(think for a second that, the field was always there, and that the planes fly over every day, for eternity, i'll explain how this relates to the arguement after i state the flag problem)

so, the plane flys over the field, every single day, for eternity, dropping red white and blue out of the windows at random intervals (but dropping only 1 splat of each color on the fly-over). given enough time (remember ETERNITY) the plane would definantly make the american flag. but first it would only drop blue, red and white in seperate spots. the more that it flys over, the more complex the picture would get. looking at it from different perspectives, you would get the france flag, the UK flag, the american flag. eventually after dropping so many colors onto the ground, they would begin to mix. purple, pink, sky blue, (and the varients) would show up. eventually within an ETERNITY of fly overs, and paint droppings, amazing pictures would be created, faces, landscapes, whatever you could imagine.

now...

We all know that stars are created from nebulae, and that planets are formed from various things (giant asteroids crashing into the stars, planets crashing into planets, black whole eating up matter, and spitting dust out, and the dust condencing under gravity, all sorts of observeable things) so with the infinite amount of planets out there at any given time, lets look at whats needed to support life (carbon based). Water, Fuel, Air. within an infinite system such as planets, you could have a one second window of opportunity and it would still make it that the opportunity for life is INFINITE, it is guarenteed. if you want to take it one step further, and look at humans, if we try to search for our "universal twins" we may not find them. but with our very existence it shows that its possible for other planets to have it. (and remember, we can see that new planets are born EVERY MINUTE of EVERYDAY) so the chance at life, non-intelligent, and super intelligent, farther than we could ever imagine, is not only possible, its PROMISED...

The "Water Bear"

that just goes to show u that your whole idea of the "soup" being too cold, is completely disprooved, sorry

reply to post by iwishicould


Actually we don't know that all the stars are created from Nebula. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.

creation.com...

Also, is there any number (odds of primordial soup happening) so absurd that you would not give "Father Time" the benefit of the doubt? Because if you look at it objectively the odds of it happening are 10 to the power of 1057 (detail in another post) we only have 10 to the power of 17 seconds in all of time if I give you billions of years. Heck there isn't even another space in the universe, there are only 10 to the power of 66 atoms in the universe.

No need to apologize, this is certainly the forum for disagreement.

reply to post by stuff1


1- u shouldnt quote a biased website and claim that its the truth.

2- "the old chicken and the egg problem" if you use this to try to refute what i'm saying, then you are contradicting yourself, look at God, who made god?

3- there isnt a number "so absurd" that it cant prove that creationism HAS to happen, do you not realize that the beginning stages of the primordial soup could have been played out trillions of times, before it even evolved into single celled animals? and if you give me a billion years, and its only .000000000017 for it to arise, then guess what, if you multiply that by an infinity of years, that number swells to an infinity.

4- you refuse to accept that there are other means of life arising, accept that some all powerful being (and not just any being, the christian God), when i bring up the fact that you cant use time, because time is infinite, you cite a website of "A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution".

5- have you ever looked at the possiblity of there being that ever powerful being, but evolution still has validity?

Originally posted by Jim Scott

"Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and FEAR him, and keep his commandments, and OBEY his voice, and ye shall SERVE him and cleave unto him."

Kind of Glad that Darwin never asked anyone to Fear, Obey and Serve him.

He just asked you to be unbiased.

I do not see how it seems illogical? The whole point of evolution is that it is SO SO utterly and completely SIMPLE! Just a simple lever going back and forth over a LONNNNNNGG period of time clicking away one little click at a time.
How much simpler does it get? Click Click Click over many many years. Every time a life form duplicated or replicated or procreated the little level clicked for a possible chance for a mutation. Click Click Click over and over and over again.

How is that illogical?

Originally posted by stuff1

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

Wrong! Science admits that it does not know what caused the Big Bang, or what existed prior. One theory proposed by Physics is that this universe was created by two other universes coming in contact with each other.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.

Wrong! Every particle in the universe exerts it's own gravitational pull. This was shown on a Shuttle mission with a ziplock bag of salt. Instead of just floating freely in the bag, the salt granules clumped together. This same principle has been observed in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50. Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?

Wrong! Organic molecules have been found in abundance in Comets and the Earth was bombarded with such material in the over three billion years of Earth's existance prior to the emergence of life here. Another billion years passed before life began to form into more complex lifeforms (multi-cell). Also, the Earth was hotter, not colder during that period (I suggest a little research into geothermal effects on the atmosphere).

Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.

Wrong! Refer to the organic molecules in my last response. No scientist has ever postulated that rocks turned into life! As far as mutation, look at H1N1 swine flu. It has mutated in order to be compatable with a larger group of hosts. If this beneficial (to the virus, not for us) mutation had not happened, then after one trip around the species of virus would die out as the host population would have antibodies to stop it from reproducing.

Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution

I'm not even sure what your point is?

Evolutionary theories stem from the observable facts. The Creation Myth is a child like story by a superstitious and scientifically child like ancient tribe of nomads. There is absolutely NO logic behind the Creation Myth and is based solely on blindfaith. Notice the emphasis!

[edit on 14-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

New here and will admit to not having read though this tread, however here is my take on the Adam and Eve story...

Humans developed as a primate type creature for a while and were then hybridized by a race of beings. This made our destiny and theirs linked. We are no longer the creature we were and our hopes and desires are now what we call human which is this hybrid creature (not just a direct hybrid like a mule but with some DNA and genes of theirs). We can't go back to being who we were or we would no longer be human and besides this option is not available, obviously. This is expressed in the bible as the Adam and Eve story. When Adam and Eve took a bite of the apple which is the fruit of the beings I am talking about and took in some of their genes, or DNA, their eyes were opened and they became hairless for a start which is why they suddenly saw they were naked and they became smarter but they also became bound to and enslaved by the beings I am talking about. Then these creatures threw us out of the garden of Eden and made us go it alone and suffer from what they had done to us. They did this because they wanted us to multiply and that is all this Earth has been about, a cradle for you to breed up in numbers and the guardians have been watching over you and they call this the Matrix, the name is correct. The guardians are called the watchmen in the bible and are most probably the Masons etc. The secret they hide from you is no little secret, it is not just about having power.

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by stuff1

 

you are assuming that there was a "big bang", which is just a "theory".
It is often used by the bible thumpers as a crutch to shove their ideology down other people's throats. However it proves nothing as it is nothing but a theory.

Evolution (macro) = it is nothing but a theory.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is perfectly happy if the big bang did not occur and instead, the universe was created by a divine being. The "nothing" was a singularity.

Is a singularity "nothing" or "something" I'm confused...
What is a "singularity?"
A point?
Spec?
Dot?
Smudge?
Smear?
Area?
Something?
Nothing?
Confusion?

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Once again, this has NOTHING to do with BIOLOGICAL evolution. Evolution is perfectly happy if the christian God did this as well. Again, I believe you should read the link provided. The first section deals with how stars form out of nebulea gas.

Nebulea gas forms out of stars.
Which came first?

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Where does Microevolution end and macro begin? You're going to say I can take a wolf and breed it into things from a great dane to a chihuahua and that it isn't possible from man to have come from apes? Is there the "Monkey" kind and the "Ape" kind? Or is it just the "Primate" kind?

Dogs remain as dogs.
Just like you can't morph an elephant into a gazelle.
We have elephants.
&
We have gazelle!

Originally posted by Wally Hope
You all assert your view as fact with nothing to support it.

Evolution (macro) is not supportable, and most definately not fact.

Who is "all" by the way, are you trying to single out a group of individuals?

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Why do christians insist that the two versions are incompatible?

Since both are untestable, they both take faith and belief.
Neither can be proven, physically anyways.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Your view is a danger to christianity with it's absurd faith based claims. Narrow minded self righteousness.

How are christains more "narrow" minded than "evolutionists?"

Evolutionists fail to realize their "THEORY" is untestable, unprovable, and undeniably only a theory!

Originally posted by Wally Hope
And we didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor.

I still don't know what "ancestor" that is?

Do you know?

Was it that lemur? Sam, or Margret, whatever the name was...

So did that lemur morph from the bacteria soup into the lemur into amy, into us?

Originally posted by Wally Hope
You are illogical.

Now is that, "Theory" or "Fact?"

Originally posted by warrenb
What's so far fetched about alien's seeding life on the planet or perhaps we emigrated here from some other place.

That is definately not far fetched, however, only a theory, again.

How did the aliens "evolve?"

Was their common ancestor a monkey too?

Maybe a reptilian monkey?

Or a reptilian lemur?

Originally posted by warrenb
Why do you have to have this closed minded approach to explaining our appearance on this planet.

Do you reject, "creationism?"

Would that make you close minded?

Or does the art of open mindedness depend on the amount of theories you believe in?

Since it seems like Stuff1 only believes in creationism, does that make him more close minded, than you not believing in it?

Originally posted by warrenb
That alone is way more believable than 99.9% of the bible.

How so?

Is there a measurement for believe?

Originally posted by JipStix
I don't see why some people immediately discount evolution and say it can't coexist with the religious belief of creation. Why can't it be that God created the universe, and evolution is just a mechanism used to advance life.
I mean, why do people feel the need to dismiss it all as hogwash?

Sure the two can co-exist...once someone proves them both, then they can co-exist!

Originally posted by JipStix
It seems rather close-minded and somewhat of a cop-out.

What does?

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Another quick point concerning the soup and the chance of life.
If there is only the very slightest chance of something happening given enough time it WILL happen.

"Probability"

Ah...another theory, eh...

Originally posted by Solomons
"Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution"

Actually it does

How does changes within a kind prove changes within two separate species into one?

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by warrenb

 

I object to aliens because Aliens are not outside time/space. Since time was created during the big bang (time is the fourth dimension) an infinite (outside time) creator must have created it.

I still think "aliens seeding our planet" is a believable theory, however they themselves would still have to of come from somewhere too.

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by Solomons

 

How so. Have you ever seen one animal become another kind? They have been desperately trying to mutate fruit fies (which live for only 24hrs) in a lab since the fifties. They can't do it. They even shove those things in the microwave to mutate them. Still a fly every time. What a shocker.

lol, I know, and I'll definately let the ats'ers here know when my cat morphs with my dog to make a cat-dog creature.

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by stuff1

 

you are assuming that there was a "big bang", which is just a "theory".
It is often used by the bible thumpers as a crutch to shove their ideology down other people's throats. However it proves nothing as it is nothing but a theory.

What does the theory of evolution prove again?

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by IntastellaBurst

 

Attacking me does not invalidate the scientific arguments that I presented. Usually a tactic that is used by people who cannot / will not argue the facts

Yeah, usually "theorists" who can't adequetely attack the opposing theory, just simply attacks the oppoising theorists without hesitation.

Originally posted by cancerian42
If you're not willing to accept the truth when/if it appears to you?

What is the "truth," I still don't know...

Originally posted by cancerian42
The beginning is unknown and irrelevant to say the least.

Ok, umm...I like keebler vanilla pudding, who cares!