Do you believe in the Darwin Theory?

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

Revinh

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

Really? Can the apes sing and dance, make artistic creations, and build houses? Do they have a seemingly endless learning capacity and the ability to accumulate knowledge? Do they farm and cultivate the ground? Do they study other plants and animals? Do they have complex, spoken language like us? Do they have technological facility? Do they have dominion over nature? Do they wear clothes? I didn't think so.

That's all a product of humans' superior spatial logic which I have already explained. You insist that we at no point could ever have been like apes in any way, though you have provided no reasons why, stating again and again that you are different from an ape, almost as if you were insecure about it. Ok, we are, not terribly, and the ways we are different derive from evolution. I have already explained how this change commenced and again I remind you that humans' advantage over all other animals is the ability to think abstractly.

Again, I was saying that this whole human difference - intellectual and spiritual superiority, etc - is an embarassment to evolution. Why do humans have an amazing brain, and like you said abstract thinking, and significantly more potential than any animal? How did it go from a "dumb" ape to a human with incredible mind? To simply say that they 'evolved' because of "their environment" or whatever is sorely inadequate. I don't know about you but I find that very difficult to believe.

First of all, the human spirit has not been proven to exist.

Humans have an amazing brain because it has evolved...its been explained to you many times, now your just plugging your ears.

All animals have the potential to evolve to our level, we simply were set up in certain circumstances to evolve beyond our ape ancestors.

Apes arent dump, for example homo sapien.

I find it difficult to believe that with the overwhelming amount of evidence you wont give up.

First of all, I wasn't talking about "the human spirit" but moral values.

Like I said, if you find that easy to believe that's problem.

Two words: vague and speculation.

When I say apes, I'm obviously excluding humans if you categorize them as also apes.

Because they'll all weak even if you combine the "overwhelming amount" of them.

So your telling me that creatinism has stronger evidence to support its claim?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

xxDustmanxx

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

That doesn't imply that there is a creator.

And humans are apes

Still don't understand. You're taking variation and extending it which isn't really plausible.

If humans have always been humans and were never anything else then they must have been created to begin with.

And I already explained the human difference.

Actually we are technically considered "great apes", and we will always be apes, though we will continue to evolve.I dont see whats your beef with evolution, its backed by evidence and study, its been proven, and tested, if for some reason its false, which is unlikely but possible then we continue to research and study alternatives.

Really, what are your motives?Why are you so desperate to disprove evolution?

Call it whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that we are different.

It's been proven and tested? lol and then it could still be false? you make sense

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

We arent so different from alot of our cousins, youd be surprised if you bothered to look into it.

It could be false,(although highly unlikely.)because science constantly tests its own theories.

Every night im on here, youre on some thread duking it out with someone, over how evolution is so false, and you cant believe that our species evolved over time, wow it sounds so ridiculous.

There are some similarities and there HUGE differences as I've explained a couple of pages ago, you'd be surprised if you bothered to look into it (or if you just open your eyes).

You can't really say it's been proven and then say it's possibly false.

So? Like I said, I'm just discussing about the subject. And I wasn't talking about how humans evolved over time but how humans has evolved from the apelike ancestor.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

Revinh

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

That doesn't imply that there is a creator.

And humans are apes

Still don't understand. You're taking variation and extending it which isn't really plausible.

If humans have always been humans and were never anything else then they must have been created to begin with.

And I already explained the human difference.

Actually we are technically considered "great apes", and we will always be apes, though we will continue to evolve.I dont see whats your beef with evolution, its backed by evidence and study, its been proven, and tested, if for some reason its false, which is unlikely but possible then we continue to research and study alternatives.

Really, what are your motives?Why are you so desperate to disprove evolution?

Call it whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that we are different.

It's been proven and tested? lol and then it could still be false? you make sense

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

We arent so different from alot of our cousins, youd be surprised if you bothered to look into it.

It could be false,(although highly unlikely.)because science constantly tests its own theories.

Every night im on here, youre on some thread duking it out with someone, over how evolution is so false, and you cant believe that our species evolved over time, wow it sounds so ridiculous.

There are some similarities and there HUGE differences as I've explained a couple of pages ago, you'd be surprised if you bothered to look into it (or if you just open your eyes).

...

So? Like I said, I'm just discussing about the subject. And I wasn't talking about how humans evolved over time but how humans has evolved from the apelike ancestor to humans.

I have, though i mostly skim through.I usually get in the thread late, and its sometimes alot to read.Open my eyes to what?Theres evidence to support evolution, theres none to support creationism, simple as that.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

xxDustmanxx

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

Really? Can the apes sing and dance, make artistic creations, and build houses? Do they have a seemingly endless learning capacity and the ability to accumulate knowledge? Do they farm and cultivate the ground? Do they study other plants and animals? Do they have complex, spoken language like us? Do they have technological facility? Do they have dominion over nature? Do they wear clothes? I didn't think so.

That's all a product of humans' superior spatial logic which I have already explained. You insist that we at no point could ever have been like apes in any way, though you have provided no reasons why, stating again and again that you are different from an ape, almost as if you were insecure about it. Ok, we are, not terribly, and the ways we are different derive from evolution. I have already explained how this change commenced and again I remind you that humans' advantage over all other animals is the ability to think abstractly.

Again, I was saying that this whole human difference - intellectual and spiritual superiority, etc - is an embarassment to evolution. Why do humans have an amazing brain, and like you said abstract thinking, and significantly more potential than any animal? How did it go from a "dumb" ape to a human with incredible mind? To simply say that they 'evolved' because of "their environment" or whatever is sorely inadequate. I don't know about you but I find that very difficult to believe.

First of all, the human spirit has not been proven to exist.

Humans have an amazing brain because it has evolved...its been explained to you many times, now your just plugging your ears.

All animals have the potential to evolve to our level, we simply were set up in certain circumstances to evolve beyond our ape ancestors.

Apes arent dump, for example homo sapien.

I find it difficult to believe that with the overwhelming amount of evidence you wont give up.

First of all, I wasn't talking about "the human spirit" but moral values.

Like I said, if you find that easy to believe that's problem.

Two words: vague and speculation.

When I say apes, I'm obviously excluding humans if you categorize them as also apes.

Because they'll all weak even if you combine the "overwhelming amount" of them.

So your telling me that creatinism has stronger evidence to support its claim?

...as I've been talking about in the threads

the fossil record, mutation, the human difference, complex to simple,..

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

Revinh

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

Really? Can the apes sing and dance, make artistic creations, and build houses? Do they have a seemingly endless learning capacity and the ability to accumulate knowledge? Do they farm and cultivate the ground? Do they study other plants and animals? Do they have complex, spoken language like us? Do they have technological facility? Do they have dominion over nature? Do they wear clothes? I didn't think so.

That's all a product of humans' superior spatial logic which I have already explained. You insist that we at no point could ever have been like apes in any way, though you have provided no reasons why, stating again and again that you are different from an ape, almost as if you were insecure about it. Ok, we are, not terribly, and the ways we are different derive from evolution. I have already explained how this change commenced and again I remind you that humans' advantage over all other animals is the ability to think abstractly.

Again, I was saying that this whole human difference - intellectual and spiritual superiority, etc - is an embarassment to evolution. Why do humans have an amazing brain, and like you said abstract thinking, and significantly more potential than any animal? How did it go from a "dumb" ape to a human with incredible mind? To simply say that they 'evolved' because of "their environment" or whatever is sorely inadequate. I don't know about you but I find that very difficult to believe.

First of all, the human spirit has not been proven to exist.

Humans have an amazing brain because it has evolved...its been explained to you many times, now your just plugging your ears.

All animals have the potential to evolve to our level, we simply were set up in certain circumstances to evolve beyond our ape ancestors.

Apes arent dump, for example homo sapien.

I find it difficult to believe that with the overwhelming amount of evidence you wont give up.

First of all, I wasn't talking about "the human spirit" but moral values.

Like I said, if you find that easy to believe that's problem.

Two words: vague and speculation.

When I say apes, I'm obviously excluding humans if you categorize them as also apes.

Because they'll all weak even if you combine the "overwhelming amount" of them.

So your telling me that creatinism has stronger evidence to support its claim?

...as I've been talking about in the threads

the fossil record, mutation, the human difference, complex to simple,..

Ive read all of that, you were presented with loads of evidence that suggests otherwise.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

No, a frog won't do that, at least not in millions of years :lol: My point is that's basically what evolutionist believe, that creatures can go shapeshifting given enough time. I know enough to know the theory is false. If you want to believe in a fairy tale that's up to you.

xxDustmanxx

Exactly! which means humans have always been humans and they will always be humans, and therefore they must have been created to begin with.

Wake up from evodelusion people! We're clearly different from apes!

That doesn't imply that there is a creator.

And humans are apes

Still don't understand. You're taking variation and extending it which isn't really plausible.

If humans have always been humans and were never anything else then they must have been created to begin with.

And I already explained the human difference.

Actually we are technically considered "great apes", and we will always be apes, though we will continue to evolve.I dont see whats your beef with evolution, its backed by evidence and study, its been proven, and tested, if for some reason its false, which is unlikely but possible then we continue to research and study alternatives.

Really, what are your motives?Why are you so desperate to disprove evolution?

Call it whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that we are different.

It's been proven and tested? lol and then it could still be false? you make sense

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

We arent so different from alot of our cousins, youd be surprised if you bothered to look into it.

It could be false,(although highly unlikely.)because science constantly tests its own theories.

Every night im on here, youre on some thread duking it out with someone, over how evolution is so false, and you cant believe that our species evolved over time, wow it sounds so ridiculous.

There are some similarities and there HUGE differences as I've explained a couple of pages ago, you'd be surprised if you bothered to look into it (or if you just open your eyes).

...

So? Like I said, I'm just discussing about the subject. And I wasn't talking about how humans evolved over time but how humans has evolved from the apelike ancestor to humans.

I have, though i mostly skim through.I usually get in the thread late, and its sometimes alot to read. Open my eyes to what?

to the reality that humans are not like apes or any other animals.

Theres evidence to support evolution, theres none to support creationism, simple as that.xxDustmanxx

Ok, if you're really that confident about it and you think you have really investigated things and actually paid attention to my posts. Bye. Simple as that.

What the heck Revinh!? Yur still going through this? :roll: I dont know if you overlooked my post earlier or not but once again I'm gonna repeat myself. Our Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNAand every other organism's DNA is the ultimate proof of evolution when compared. Since its the bulding blocks of life we can determine our ancestors & every other creature's ancestors through comparisons of the DNA samples. You can even find out that for example your a European and then through DNA samples from your gum salivas, the examiner can determine that you actually have traces of blood or genes of an Asian. Also Your forgetting or probably dont know that Evolution is happening in every life forms right now & never stops, the thing is you will never notice it at all but if you take a very long time span then you'll see the dramatic changes of life forms dur to evoluton. So yes our distinct intelligence is harnesed from evolution.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

It IS scientifically and historically accurate. How was the flood disproven?

Aidenfury19

1) Not enough water in the world both above and below ground to cause it.

2) For extraterrestrial sources to cause it the atmosphere would have been basically boiled upon the comet entering the atmosphere.

3) The building materials of the time were not sufficient for the supposed dimensions of the ark.

4) No part of the supposed ark was ever located despite it likely having landed in a glacier if the geography is to be believed.

- Early in the creation process, there came to be "water beneath the expanse" and "water above the expanse" (Gen 1:7)

- "the floodgates of the heavens opened" -Gen 7:11, the "water above" fell and provided much of the water

- seashells are found in high mountains

- Many animals like the mammoth were quick frozen. Species of mammals everywhere like the sabertooth became extinct with a climate change at the same time

- a global deluge isn't too far-fetched, 70% of the percent of the earth is covered in water

- the mountains may not be as high then as they are today

- 75% of the water is locked up as ice

- I don't think the resinous, building materials, wood, possibly cypress and some copper and iron, are a problem for the supposed dimensions of the ark, it's just a matter of having plenty of them

- there's still a possibility that the ark's remains hasn't been found.

- mankind did not forget. while some of the details differ, there is a worldwide acceptance of the universal flood

What the heck Revinh!? Yur still going through this? :roll: I dont know if you overlooked my post earlier or not but once again I'm gonna repeat myself. Our Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNAand every other organism's DNA is the ultimate proof of evolution when compared. Since its the bulding blocks of life we can determine our ancestors & every other creature's ancestors through comparisons of the DNA samples. You can even find out that for example your a European and then through DNA samples from your gum salivas, the examiner can determine that you actually have traces of blood or genes of an Asian. Also Your forgetting or probably dont know that Evolution is happening in every life forms right now & never stops, the thing is you will never notice it at all but if you take a very long time span then you'll see the dramatic changes of life forms dur to evoluton. So yes our distinct intelligence is harnesed from evolution. JCblueside

Yeah, my human ancestor can probably be traced. Traced beyond that of a human? Get lost.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

It IS scientifically and historically accurate. How was the flood disproven?

Revinh

1) Not enough water in the world both above and below ground to cause it.

2) For extraterrestrial sources to cause it the atmosphere would have been basically boiled upon the comet entering the atmosphere.

3) The building materials of the time were not sufficient for the supposed dimensions of the ark.

4) No part of the supposed ark was ever located despite it likely having landed in a glacier if the geography is to be believed.

- Early in the creation process, there came to be "water beneath the expanse" and "water above the expanse" (Gen 1:7)

- "the floodgates of the heavens opened" -Gen 7:11, the "water above" fell and provided much of the water

Quoting the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a subjective belief. But yes, there is plenty of water on Earth to flood most of the land.

- seashells are found in high mountains

If you studied science/geography and plate tectonics, mountainous regions are formed when two plates are forced together. The ground at sea level is forced upwards to produce mountains along with all the fossils in it. Looks like this is another subject of science you're not familiar with.

- Many animals like the mammoth were quick frozen. Species of mammals everywhere like the sabertooth became extinct with a climate change at the same time

I don't see how prehistoric mammals being frozen is related to a great flood.

- a global deluge isn't too far-fetched, 70% of the percent of the earth is covered in water

- the mountains may not be as high then as they are today

Given that the movement of plate tectonics is extremely slow, it would take millions of years, not 6000, to produce them.

- 75% of the water is locked up as ice

- I don't think the resinous, building materials, wood, possibly cypress and some copper and iron, are a problem for the supposed dimensions of the ark, it's just a matter of having plenty of them

Materials no, but for a few men a few thousand years ago being able to construct a boat big enough to host thousands of animals is a bit farfetched. And let us not get in to the fact that if there were only two, all their offspring would be inbred...

- there's still a possibility that the ark's remains hasn't been found.

That's right, no remains of the Ark. Guess the whole Bible must be wrong. Just like all of Evolution must be wrong because a few things don't add up to you. Sounds like a 'leap of faith' to me /sarcasm.

- mankind did not forget. while some of the details differ, there is a worldwide acceptance of the universal flood

A great flood has been documented across many cultures around the world at said time. The fact that it has been documented by separate civilisations would suggest that a) God didn't flood the entire world and b) he didn't drown everyone (Thou Shalt Not Kill? Lead by example, God) making the Bible... inaccurate!

And simply because the flood happened, doesn't mean everything else in the Bible is true... Simply that someone actually documented a real world event in the Bible contrary to the lack of all other evidence of miracles. And even then, people at the time would not have understood such phenomena and would use God to explain what had happened.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

It IS scientifically and historically accurate. How was the flood disproven?

Red-XIII

1) Not enough water in the world both above and below ground to cause it.

2) For extraterrestrial sources to cause it the atmosphere would have been basically boiled upon the comet entering the atmosphere.

3) The building materials of the time were not sufficient for the supposed dimensions of the ark.

4) No part of the supposed ark was ever located despite it likely having landed in a glacier if the geography is to be believed.

- Early in the creation process, there came to be "water beneath the expanse" and "water above the expanse" (Gen 1:7)

- "the floodgates of the heavens opened" -Gen 7:11, the "water above" fell and provided much of the water

Quoting the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a subjective belief. But yes, there is plenty of water on Earth to flood most of the land.

- seashells are found in high mountains

If you studied science/geography and plate tectonics, mountainous regions are formed when two plates are forced together. The ground at sea level is forced upwards to produce mountains along with all the fossils in it. Looks like this is another subject of science you're not familiar with.

- Many animals like the mammoth were quick frozen. Species of mammals everywhere like the sabertooth became extinct with a climate change at the same time

I don't see how prehistoric mammals being frozen is related to a great flood.

- a global deluge isn't too far-fetched, 70% of the percent of the earth is covered in water

- the mountains may not be as high then as they are today

Given that the movement of plate tectonics is extremely slow, it would take millions of years, not 6000, to produce them.

- 75% of the water is locked up as ice

- I don't think the resinous, building materials, wood, possibly cypress and some copper and iron, are a problem for the supposed dimensions of the ark, it's just a matter of having plenty of them

Materials no, but for a few men a few thousand years ago being able to construct a boat big enough to host thousands of animals is a bit farfetched. And let us not get in to the fact that if there were only two, all their offspring would be inbred...

- there's still a possibility that the ark's remains hasn't been found.

That's right, no remains of the Ark. Guess the whole Bible must be wrong. Just like all of Evolution must be wrong because a few things don't add up to you. Sounds like a 'leap of faith' to me /sarcasm.

- mankind did not forget. while some of the details differ, there is a worldwide acceptance of the universal flood

A great flood has been documented across many cultures around the world at said time. The fact that it has been documented by separate civilisations would suggest that a) God didn't flood the entire world and b) he didn't drown everyone (Thou Shalt Not Kill? Lead by example, God) making the Bible... inaccurate!

And simply because the flood happened, doesn't mean everything else in the Bible is true... Simply that someone actually documented a real world event in the Bible contrary to the lack of all other evidence of miracles. And even then, people at the time would not have understood such phenomena and would use God to explain what had happened.

It actually says thou shall not murder...

Thats one thing i want to correct you on.

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

Revinh

It actually says thou shall not murder...

Thats one thing i want to correct you on.

123625

Well, I must correct you.

In the King James version of the Bilbe it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

In the New Internation Version it says "You Shall Not Murder"

In the New Living Translation it says "Do Not Murder"

So depending on which version you have, it says different things. Even then, by definition, kill and murder mean the same thing.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

It IS scientifically and historically accurate. How was the flood disproven?

Red-XIII

1) Not enough water in the world both above and below ground to cause it.

2) For extraterrestrial sources to cause it the atmosphere would have been basically boiled upon the comet entering the atmosphere.

3) The building materials of the time were not sufficient for the supposed dimensions of the ark.

4) No part of the supposed ark was ever located despite it likely having landed in a glacier if the geography is to be believed.

- Early in the creation process, there came to be "water beneath the expanse" and "water above the expanse" (Gen 1:7)

- "the floodgates of the heavens opened" -Gen 7:11, the "water above" fell and provided much of the water

Quoting the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a subjective belief. But yes, there is plenty of water on Earth to flood most of the land. :roll: just giving what other things the Bible said, may not be considered evidence but a possible support

- seashells are found in high mountains

If you studied science/geography and plate tectonics, mountainous regions are formed when two plates are forced together. The ground at sea level is forced upwards to produce mountains along with all the fossils in it. Looks like this is another subject of science you're not familiar with. Or the seashells could've been washed up on the mountains because of the flood. If examining the evidence and if it's more likely that it's because of the Flood, then your alternative fails.

- Many animals like the mammoth were quick frozen. Species of mammals everywhere like the sabertooth became extinct with a climate change at the same time

I don't see how prehistoric mammals being frozen is related to a great flood. If you study what I said happened it can be accounted for a universal flood: many mammals around the world at one time froze with no sign of violence accompanied by a sudden change in climate

- a global deluge isn't too far-fetched, 70% of the percent of the earth is covered in water

- the mountains may not be as high then as they are today

Given that the movement of plate tectonics is extremely slow, it would take millions of years, not 6000, to produce them.I didn't say it's sudden or that is so much higher. Also, the great sea basin may not be as deep.

- 75% of the water is locked up as ice

- I don't think the resinous, building materials, wood, possibly cypress and some copper and iron, are a problem for the supposed dimensions of the ark, it's just a matter of having plenty of them

Materials no, but for a few men a few thousand years ago being able to construct a boat big enough to host thousands of animals is a bit farfetched. And let us not get in to the fact that if there were only two, all their offspring would be inbred... I could care less if it's a bit farfetched and what's your point about inbred offspring?

- there's still a possibility that the ark's remains hasn't been found.

That's right, no remains of the Ark. Guess the whole Bible must be wrong. Just like all of Evolution must be wrong because a few things don't add up to you. Sounds like a 'leap of faith' to me /sarcasm. ...there's still a possibility that the ark's remains hasn't been found

- mankind did not forget. while some of the details differ, there is a worldwide acceptance of the universal flood

A great flood has been documented across many cultures around the world at said time. The fact that it has been documented by separate civilisations would suggest that a) God didn't flood the entire world Uh, no it means Noah and his family reproduced and passed on the story and b) he didn't drown everyone (Thou Shalt Not Kill? Lead by example, God) making the Bible... inaccurate! All the people that was drowned was given enough warning

And simply because the flood happened, doesn't mean everything else in the Bible is true... Did I say it does? :roll: Simply that someone actually documented a real world event in the Bible contrary to the lack of all other evidence of miracles. And even then, people at the time would not have understood such phenomena and would use God to explain what had happened.

[QUOTE="123625"]

It actually says thou shall not murder...

Thats one thing i want to correct you on.

Red-XIII

Well, I must correct you.

In the King James version of the Bilbe it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

In the New Internation Version it says "You Shall Not Murder"

In the New Living Translation it says "Do Not Murder"

So depending on which version you have, it says different things. Even then, by definition, kill and murder mean the same thing.

Go read the original Hebrew if you want the right meaning.

And there is a massive difference between kill and murder.

Murder= something criminal.

Kill = causes them to die.

To say killing is murder is like saying when we kill animals for food its murder.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

C_Town_Soul

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

Revinh

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]The fossil record agrees with creation showing sudden appearances of creatures virtually unchanged over long periods of time. Are there in fact intermediate forms or are they just desperate attempts to make the data fit with the theory? You'll probably say there are, but I encourage you to investigate if that's really the case.notconspiracy

So...fish and amphibians are living today and no "intermediates" are? reptiles and birds are living today yet no intermediates are? apes and humans are living today and no "intermediates" are living today, etc? Very interesting.

And aren't you the one who was talking about the nested hierarchy? As another evolutionist said, groups of animals wouldn't be becoming other groups or kinds. You guys don't even agree with how you believe it.

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

C_Town_Soul

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

Revinh

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

here is my 2 bits. If humans and monkies had the same ancestors wouldent monkies have evolved to? so if you think about the Adam and eve sounds like a good start then yes?hofuldig

Exactly my argument. They'd say "the human ape ancestor was in a different situation/environment and it somehow over millions of years evolved into humans with incredible minds" which I don't buy.

here is my 2 bits. If humans and monkies had the same ancestors wouldent monkies have evolved to? so if you think about the Adam and eve sounds like a good start then yes?hofuldig

Think of a tree's trunk as a common ancestor and having it split into two branches. One branch leads to a chimpanzee, the other to humans. Make sense?

[QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

123625

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

C_Town_Soul

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

All you have to do is read all my posts here. It seems my arguments aren't good enough for you, there's not much more I can do about that. *

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

123625

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Anyone who believes in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/don't know it's seriously flawed

C. Crazy

D. Simply wants the theory to be true and brainwashed

I think most are probably D.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

C_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

Revinh

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

All you have to do is read all my posts here. It seems my arguments aren't good enough for you, there's not much more I can do about that. *

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

123625

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

How am I so desperate? I've just been posting my thoughts that all. I might just seem that way because a whole bunch of apes, or I mean, people are the opposing belief as mine and I'm having to tackle them all.

C_Town_Soul

thoughts - arguments, evidences, whatever things I posted. Duh. If you want to discredit the evidences I presented that's your problem. I guess I'm done with you.

Right, in several posts I made that's all I said (which is in response to "the ark was not found")

All you have to do is read all my posts here. It seems my arguments aren't good enough for you, there's not much more I can do about that. *

I already posted www.creationevolution.net

top evidences against evolution

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

It's obvious that because of humans reflective consciousness, far greater capacity and potential, we are different and "above" animals. (I'm not saying we have the right to do bad things to the environment/nature or "own" the world in that way.)

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

Um i wasnt raised in an overly christian household at all. Sure my mum beleives in it, but she didnt force it on me at all, she actually said she would support any thing i should beleive in. I actually beleived in Evolution once, though i see it as impossible for me now. Guess maybe i was atheist for the shortest of time however though i havent actually started to be christian untill three or so months ago, possibly 6. Any way its all good.

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

Revinh

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

It's obvious that because of humans reflective consciousness, far greater capacity and potential, we are different and "above" animals. (I'm not saying we have the right to do bad things to the environment/nature or "own" the world in that way.)

I believe that our intelligence and all the things that come with it are simply our way of adapting to the environment in the same way that some animals are really strong and others are really fast and still others have sharp claws. It is good to hear that you don't think that humans are entitled to own the world (a lot of people that think evolution is fact still believe that).

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

123625

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

Um i wasnt raised in an overly christian household at all. Sure my mum beleives in it, but she didnt force it on me at all, she actually said she would support any thing i should beleive in. I actually beleived in Evolution once, though i see it as impossible for me now. Guess maybe i was atheist for the shortest of time however though i havent actually started to be christian untill three or so months ago, possibly 6. Any way its all good.

Well whatever works for you and allows you to become a happier person is great for you. I still think that our society is headed for real trouble if we keep making 200 species a day go extinct and polluting our planet.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

gobo212

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

It's obvious that because of humans reflective consciousness, far greater capacity and potential, we are different and "above" animals. (I'm not saying we have the right to do bad things to the environment/nature or "own" the world in that way.)

I believe that our intelligence and all the things that come with it are simply our way of adapting to the environment in the same way that some animals are really strong and others are really fast and still others have sharp claws. It is good to hear that you don't think that humans are entitled to own the world (a lot of people that think evolution is fact still believe that).

It's way too huge of a leap for evolution to account for that, like it's super-adaptation. And there's no evidence that other animals with some abilities that exceed that of humans, bird's eyesights, fast cheetah's, etc evolved their abilities. The environment simply don't help much to create the organism, which is why IMO they were intelligently designed, created.

[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="gobo212"]

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is either:

A. Ignorant

B. Extremely stubborn/brainwashed

C. Crazy

I think most are probably A.

Revinh

Im sorry im so ignorant:( P.S not really:P

Don't worry I don't hold it against you.

P.S. I think you may fall in categories B or C actually...

P.S You fall into them :P

I could see how you would think that but no... I only fall into the Gap.

Why must you think so little of me :( Then again a great ape such as yourself would be like that wouldnt he :)

I don't think little of you or anyone else. I just think you were brought up in different circumstances as me and thus hae a different world view. I think that maybe because of the influence of your parents and/or cultural leaders in your community you tend to side with the people that are important in your life rather than the vast majority of scientists. I think that tends to be more narrowminded but in no way do I think less of you. In fact (a fact you will probably not agree with) I think we and every other species on this planet are equal and I believe that mankind needs to start acting that way instead as if we owned the world. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

It's obvious that because of humans reflective consciousness, far greater capacity and potential, we are different and "above" animals. (I'm not saying we have the right to do bad things to the environment/nature or "own" the world in that way.)

I believe that our intelligence and all the things that come with it are simply our way of adapting to the environment in the same way that some animals are really strong and others are really fast and still others have sharp claws. It is good to hear that you don't think that humans are entitled to own the world (a lot of people that think evolution is fact still believe that).

It's way too huge of a leap for evolution to account for that, like it's super-adaptation. And there's no evidence that other animals some abilities that exceed that of humans, bird's eyesights, fast cheetah's, etc evolved their abilities. The environment simply don't help much to create the organism, which is why IMO they were intelligently designed, created.

Doesn't it make sens that over millions of years the birds with superior eyesight would have gotten more meals and thus reproduced more?

Doesn't it make sens that over millions of years the birds with superior eyesight would have gotten more meals and thus reproduced more?gobo212

Well, other animals have these other abilities so nature is balanced.

[QUOTE="gobo212"]Doesn't it make sens that over millions of years the birds with superior eyesight would have gotten more meals and thus reproduced more?Revinh

Well, other animals have these other abilities so nature is balanced.

True, nature is by its very nature (ugh) is balanced. No divine hand is necessary for that.

I already posted www.creationevolution.net

top evidences against evolution

Revinh

Evidence 1 basically states that there are no transitional fossils which is false. There have been countless numbers of transitional fossils found. Horse Evolution for example.

Evidence 2 states natural selection cannont happen which is wrong. It fails to take into consideration favorable traits being passed on and the likelyhood that these traits will continue to be passed on in successive generations while unfavorable traits become less common. That is basically the gist of natural selection. It also talks about gene mutations, which are rare and usually deletarious to a species, however current research suggests that they hardly have a role in evolution as once believed. And besides they don't take into consideration that a harmful mutation for an organism will lessen the likelyhood of survival and the chance to pass it on.

Evidence 3 talks about abiogenisis, life from non life, yet that has nothing to do with evolution. That's a totally different subject.

Evidence 4: the first 3 reasons are probably quote-mined as most creationist love to do. Talks about specific fossils, like lucy, and how they were basing hypothesis on a couple bones. Lucy is actually 40% complete. The site claims that you can't learn much from a few bones but you can. For Lucy, you can tell by the width of the pelvic bone that she's a female. About Piltdown man, everyone knows it's a hoax. Uh there are plenty of other ancestral human species found. Here's a list:

This list is in chronological order by genus.

• Sahelanthropus
  • Sahelanthropus tchadensis
• Orrorin
  • Orrorin tugenensis
• Ardipithecus
  • Ardipithecus kadabba
  • Ardipithecus ramidus
• Australopithecus
  • Australopithecus anamensis
  • Australopithecus afarensis
  • Australopithecus bahrelghazali
  • Australopithecus africanus
  • Australopithecus garhi
• Paranthropus
  • Paranthropus aethiopicus
  • Paranthropus boisei
  • Paranthropus robustus
• Kenyanthropus
  • Kenyanthropus platyops
• Homo
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo rudolfensis
  • Homo ergaster
  • Homo georgicus
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo cepranensis
  • Homo antecessor
  • Homo heidelbergensis
  • Homo rhodesiensis
  • Homo neanderthalensis
  • Homo sapiens idaltu
  • Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
  • Homo sapiens sapiens
  • Homo floresiensis

Evidence 5: Pretty much the same response as above. I will add that they mention a couple of the fossils have crests on there head and thus can't be ancestors to us. That actually suggest they split onto another branch of the tree.

Evidence 6: Says 3 main "ancestors" are actually human. They are completely different. Homo Erectus's brain is 75% of a human brain. Also sexual dimorphism is larger. Here is info on Neanderthals, I don't have time to explain all the differences. Cro-Magnon are the first homo sapiens. They had slightly larger cranial capacity. That's about it.

Evidence 7: Natural selection and social issues. It basically says because of survival of the fittest, you would become barbarians. Uh no. Because you have a favorable trait for the environmental conditions like a hairier body for a cold climate, doesn't make you a barbarian. It just means you're likely to survive and pass on that trait to the next generation while another from the same specie without that trait is likely to die.

Evidence 8: Basically says natural selection leads to there must be a common designer. Uh that basically contradicts what they previously stated before by saying natural selection doesn't happen and then saying it does happen because of an intelligent designer. Plus saying there's a common designer implies that there are multiple designers and they don't even realize this. Take a starfish and a human with their ancestors. Starfish and humans don't share many unique common characters. This implies each branch, so to say, must have it's own common designer which contradicts their religion in the first place!

Evidence 9: Says strata layers and fossils is best explained by a universal flood. If there was a universal flood, where are the fossils or the actual evidence of one? And how would one of each animal fit onto the ark if it existed?

And might I add to that site you posted. I just realized the last time it was updated was in 1995. 13 years ago. Information that's way outdated and is no longer credible.

I'm going to bed. I'll post more when I wake.