Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3339 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolutionist are fond of pointing to "MICRO-evolution," meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. Whether a chameleon which is green on a green leaf, and brown on a brown leaf, it is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species. Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another PROOF OF GOD; a proof of His intricate DESIGN placed within a myriad of His creatures.
I responded to this one already.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as "Mother Nature" (interesting they refuse to call it "Father")
I believe the reason it is called Mother nature is because, traditionally "mothers" are nurturers. Not sure where that came from exactly, but I'm sure it's not something that is refused to be referred to differently lol. If you wanted to call it "Father nature" then I'm sure it would be fine... "Father time" might not like it though ;)
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>We know much about the Creator by looking at His CREATION. Creation means all that IS; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy.
We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law-abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight, and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Where did it come from? What was before it?
Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: astronomy, biology, geology and all their divisions such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics—a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only ONE subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane and every day, taken-for-granted things such as "air," or "water," or "light." I promise you, you will be fascinated!"
I'm curious as to what gave you the idea that I am not aware or interested in any or all of the aspects of the universe... I've read on many different subjects... I was simply stating that you should do more reading, or read, on the subject of evolution before you make false claims. You didn't seem to show much knowledge in how evolution works so I assumed that you haven't read up on it much. I am generally already fascinated by all of the different angles of our universe and have learned much from the library and such...:)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3340 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong version.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
The only reason that all of this always confuses me is, I've never seen anywhere that science says that evolution claims (for instance) that a frog can turn into a panda over a long period of time. It doesn't talk about creatures turning into completely different creatures. If you are aware of any science based articles that make this claim or something similar could you please post a link for me.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3341 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong version.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
The original question was "where in the bible does it say...." that's why I said that you had your page number wrong... and from the bible, that page number would be wrong ;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3342 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong version.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Bullshit LIES FOR JEWSUS website contains no facts.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#3343 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong version.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Where in the bibull does it say:- "And the lord said unto Noah build me many small flat-bottom pontoons and rope them together".

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3344 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>The only reason that all of this always confuses me is, I've never seen anywhere that science says that evolution claims (for instance) that a frog can turn into a panda over a long period of time. It doesn't talk about creatures turning into completely different creatures. If you are aware of any science based articles that make this claim or something similar could you please post a link for me.
Evolution claims all life plant and animal life came from one "the first life form"

Do you know how ridicules that is?

"Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, from kingdoms to species, and individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. The similarities between all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species, living and extinct, have diverged through the process of evolution."

Or maybe a common creator.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3345 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>I responded to this one already.

The Almighty Tzar wrote, "<quoted text>The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as "Mother Nature" (interesting they refuse to call it "Father")"

I believe the reason it is called Mother nature is because, traditionally "mothers" are nurturers. Not sure where that came from exactly, but I'm sure it's not something that is refused to be referred to differently lol. If you wanted to call it "Father nature" then I'm sure it would be fine... "Father time" might not like it though ;)

The Almighty Tzar wrote, "<quoted text>We know much about the Creator by looking at His CREATION. Creation means all that IS; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy.
We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law-abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight, and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Where did it come from? What was before it?
Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: astronomy, biology, geology and all their divisions such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics—a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only ONE subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane and every day, taken-for-granted things such as "air," or "water," or "light." I promise you, you will be fascinated!""

I'm curious as to what gave you the idea that I am not aware or interested in any or all of the aspects of the universe... I've read on many different subjects... I was simply stating that you should do more reading, or read, on the subject of evolution before you make false claims. You didn't seem to show much knowledge in how evolution works so I assumed that you haven't read up on it much. I am generally already fascinated by all of the different angles of our universe and have learned much from the library and such...:)
Lets look at one item.

What existed when there was no time?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3346 Jul 28, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Where in the bibull does it say:- "And the lord said unto Noah build me many small flat-bottom pontoons and rope them together".
Page 231
Thinking

UK

#3347 Jul 28, 2013
Do you know how ridiculous your inability to spell ridiculous is?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know how ridicules that is?

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#3348 Jul 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Do you know how ridiculous your inability to spell ridiculous is?
<quoted text>
We know how ridiculous Tzar Tzar is, that is nothing new.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3349 Jul 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know how ridiculous your inability to spell ridiculous is?
LOL. And they call this a smart phone.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3350 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>We know how ridiculous Tzar Tzar is, that is nothing new.
A___ MYTH_

Your 3 BIG Myths:

1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.

3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.

And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.

"SNAP"

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#3351 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
A___ MYTH_
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
When you snap your fingers , you will still be as dumb as a sack of rocks.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3352 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Time did not even exist.
Nothing can exist with out Time.
Nothing can happen with out Time.
Nothing can change with out Time.
Yet Time appeared with out Time in this model. Interesting Myth you have.
To say it 'appeared' suggests, incorrectly, that it didn't exist at some point and then did exist at some other point. Since *points* only exist when there was time, this shows your lack of understanding.

There is no 'conservation of time' that is violated here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3353 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, every time you get boxed in the insults start flying. I expect that from the children on this form not the older states men.
"a concept of a time with no prior time;"
Yes this is impossible and you think it happened. Nice Myth.
Finally! No, this is NOT impossible. And that is your fundamental point where you fail to understand.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3354 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a fact if science. Evolution is an unproven theory. It's never been observed its never been documented its never been duplicated.
It does not happen.
This is wrong on all points. It has been established that species change over geological time. This change is known as evolution. It has been observed in many different ways, including actual observation of speciation in both the lab and in the wild.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3355 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Oh wait you must think that turning on or off genes is evolution. How cute.
Yes, turning genes on or off *is* a type of evolution. Duplication of genes is another type of evolution. Mutation of genes is yet another type of evolution. In all, species change over time. And *that* is the definition of evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3356 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolutionist are fond of pointing to "MICRO-evolution," meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. Whether a chameleon which is green on a green leaf, and brown on a brown leaf, it is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species. Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another PROOF OF GOD; a proof of His intricate DESIGN placed within a myriad of His creatures."
The problem is that your notion of 'kind' is not well defined and testable. It is a vaguely used idea derived from religious enthusiasm instead of actual science. By ignoring significant differences between species, you ignore the essential aspects of evolution.

As an example, you previous claimed that all trees are a single kind. THis, even though there are dramatic differences in both the morphology and the physiology of, say, the monocots and dicots as well as the flowering trees versus the conifers. Any rational classification would see that trees have a wide variety of forms and biological characteristics. To label them all as one 'kind' simply shows the lack of utility of the concept of 'kind'.

On a scale of a human lifetime, we can only hope to see evolution between fairly closely related species. But we have substantial evidence that species change over geological time as well as genetic evidence of the relatedness. Again, the concept of 'kind' has proven to be useless in categorizing and understanding the changes in species.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3357 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution claims all life plant and animal life came from one "the first life form"
Do you know how ridicules that is?
"Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, from kingdoms to species, and individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. The similarities between all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species, living and extinct, have diverged through the process of evolution."
Or maybe a common creator.
No, a common ancestor. By the way, that common ancestor doesn't have to have been the 'first' life form. In fact, given what we know, it almost certainly was not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3358 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
A___ MYTH_
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
And once again, you lie when you say *anyone* believes these things. In particular, the Big Bang was NOT 'nothing exploding'; life did NOT simply come from rain falling on rocks; and NOBODY claims that plants evolved into animals.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Chimney1 29,423
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Uncle Sam 11,286
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 37 min NightSerf 9,580
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 53 min NightSerf 254,888
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr Uncle Sam 345
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 5 hr Richardfs 50,921
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr Christyna 3,508
More from around the web