“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#838 Jun 29, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Who laid the egg? and at what point did the holes end up in the shell for the oxygen?
'God did it with magic, end of story' is probably not the right answer.

It would perhaps be a bit more instructive to compare the genes responsible for permeable amphibian egg sacks to those for impermeable egg shells with holes. I am not equipped for this level of reseach and neither are you. How much Calcium is in an amphibian egg sack anyway?

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#839 Jun 29, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Nick, that is not correct. Science, including Biology, is based on observation. If God did not want us to examine the universe He created and try to figure out what was going on we would still be living in caves, as fundies, in a sense, still do.
God bless you.
I agree,'Science including Biology' are...evolution other than 'micro' are not...

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#840 Jun 29, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
so you are calling schools and teachers liars huh?
how about all those CHARTS that hang in science rooms showing the progression of evolution from a flippin monkey to a human!
http://www.bing.com/search...
you must think people are as fruity as you are.
You're confusing hominids with monkeys and apes.

But that's understandable, since you get confused so easily.

If you would actually READ the chart you linked to, you'd see this progression:

Hominidos - Australopithecus - Paranthropus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens.

Monkeys and apes, along with humans, evolved from the hominids. We share a common ancestor.

As I stated earlier, only an idiot would think that evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes and/or monkeys.

Have a good evening, idiot...

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#841 Jun 29, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Who laid the egg? and at what point did the holes end up in the shell for the oxygen?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/an...
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#842 Jun 29, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Please show the passage in the Bible where this God says the Bible is his, er...her Book and that she sanctions this Book as the only source of material on her..?
BTW, you do know the Bible NEVER refers to the God as a she...so which Bible are you reading...?
FYI, there are plenty of real explanations for all sorts of things outside the Bible, and one of them is that the Bible is mostly full of shyty made up myths.
There are multiple places in the OT where God is identified as female. Spirits are neither male or female but on earth, God will inhabit the body of a woman.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#843 Jun 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>on earth, God will inhabit the body of a woman.
Lucky girl...:)

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#844 Jun 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
It might be if dumb hillbilly "Christian" pastors were the ones out doing the science...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.h...
Creationist Claim CC310:
Fossils are used to determine the order and dates of the strata in which they are found. But the fossil order itself is based on the order of strata and the assumption of evolution. Therefore, using fossil progression as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning.
Response:
Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.
The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.
Links:
MacRae, Andrew. 1997-1998. Radiometric dating and the geological time scale: Circular reasoning or reliable tools?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon?

Radiometric dating

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#845 Jun 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
New species are found all the time, and occasionally observed speciating real time (although not in complex mammals, since that takes a LONG time).
A new species of bacteria, for example, is what you Jesus Freaks would call "macroevolution," and it has been observed in the lab.
Probably wasting my time here with you, troll, right? But anyway...
From one generation to another, a dog always produces a dog. Science would agree with that.
However, that first offspring (call it Generation 1) is always slightly different from its parents, due to the combination of parental genes and to gene mutations.
Now if you followed Generation 1 to Generation 2, 3, 4, 5--- etc. all the way to Generation 1 MILLION, a million years later, you might very well find that the offspring called Generation 1,000,000 is SO different from Generation 1 that science would call it a new and different species and the two species would no longer be able to mate with one another.
THIS is what science says happens in the Theory of Evolution -- not a fish coming out of a rock.
It's still bacteria...

You "might"...

Unobserved and guaranteed, it'll still be a dog...
T J Stoner

San Diego, CA

#847 Jun 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>God will inhabit the body of a woman.
Sounds romantic.(: Will she eventually have children?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#848 Jun 30, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still bacteria...
Would it trouble you even a bit to get an education?

"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)

Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)

Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.

There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.

So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."

A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new kind of bacteria.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#849 Jun 30, 2013
T J Stoner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds romantic.(: Will she eventually have children?
We are all Gods children.

“I'll have some FSM...”

Since: Sep 10

with a side order of awesome!

#850 Jun 30, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah dummy you quoted me, but you still don't know or understand what you quoted!
you think there is a person alive today that doesn't know what evolution is about?
you are so full of yourself you have no room left to expand on when you hear what others have to share here.
No, you junt understand what you are talking about as I have demonstrated time and time again. You have lost but we can continue, its all in good fun.
Punisher

Massapequa Park, NY

#851 Jun 30, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>There are multiple places in the OT where God is identified as female. Spirits are neither male or female but on earth, God will inhabit the body of a woman.
God of Breasts?

Cite the multiple places...
Punisher

Massapequa Park, NY

#852 Jun 30, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon?
Radiometric dating
Grand Canyon;

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/geologi...
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#853 Jun 30, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
God of Breasts?
Cite the multiple places...
Job 38:29 "Out of whose womb came the ice?" Lev. 4:32, Mal 1:14 A lamb for a sin offering must be female. Psalm 144:12 Daughters are cornerstones. Prov. 3:18 Tree of Life (wisdom) is female. Jer. 33:15-18 she shall be called the Lord. Zech. 6:1 Mountains symbolize breasts. Jer. 30:6 A travailing woman. Jer. 31:22 A woman shall compass a man Is. 54:6 The wife of God. Dan. 7:8 a little horn. Is. 66:7-8. There are more than that.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#854 Jun 30, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Well this is where you are very wrong. Forced?
Are we forcing when we teach any subject with its actual contents? Grammar is taught by using what is Grammatically correct. And yes whats correct does change...with the times. Same with math, we teach with math, measured by actual math. With science we teach with actual science, that is measured by actual science. We dont teach math with Eng Lit, nor do we decide whats right for the math curriculum by whats rights for the Grammar classes.
Creationism is not a science, its not supported by what IS science. Its a Religious POV, based on Religious texts, that are not scientific journals of any stretch, nor can the contents be tested scientifically, and science is not needed for the faith required to believe in them...! In fact, most of the times runs against it!
ID'ers are trying to FORCE creationism, of the Xtian variety, into actual SCIENCE classes. Not the other way around! Evo is not being forced into biology, anthropology, etc, etc, science classes...IT BELONGS THERE! Thats where it supposed to be, where its best taught...!
man oh man, talk about beating a dead horse...but you are the KING of the beaten horse...
No one is forcing Evo into science curricula, its has to be there, or else we're seriously shortchanging the American students. ID/creationism is A Religious POV - not a scientific one. Which even the proponents of the damn ideas admit to!
....And as I've stated before......Creationist 'scientists' are 'not' trying to remove 'evolution' from the science classroom...and quite frankly, neither am I....

Evolution, whether it belongs there or not is being 'forced'. In other words....there's "no choice". What Creationist 'scientists' are trying to do, is to present 'their' evidence of Genesis creation from a 'scientific' standpoint.....alongside, keyword "alongside" evolution.

Can you "at all" conceive of the idea that if there is in fact a creator involved with our existence in it's entirety, that the creation account given in Genesis is very possible? You may have to remove your 'mantra' concerning religion being kept out of science for awhile to contemplate this....
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#855 Jun 30, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
....And as I've stated before......Creationist 'scientists' are 'not' trying to remove 'evolution' from the science classroom...and quite frankly, neither am I....
Their explicit words say quote otherwise.

And your opinion doesn't count in this, since you know nothing, really, about the subject.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution, whether it belongs there or not is being 'forced'. In other words....there's "no choice".
There is no choice because creationism is not a science and public schools teach actual, accepted SCIENCE in their science classes, More power to them.

Teach your stuff in your church Sunday morning, for those who are interested.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#856 Jun 30, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Most people who accept evolution have at the very least a basic grounding in the sciences, religious people included.

2. As for creationism/intelligent design, there is nothing scientific about it.

3. So here's the rub: you can be a religious person and fully accept evolution, yet you cannot be an atheist and accept creationism/intelligent design.
1. From what I perceive, there are many who accept evolution that have very little or no grounding.

2. This may merely be an issue of semantics. If we get semantical about it, we can claim that the act of an intelligent being creating the universe out of nothing is unscientific whether it happened or not. Is this idea of yours dependent on whether or not it's fact? If you found out today that an intelligent being brought the universe into existence from nothing, would you apply science to this, or still keep it separate?

3. I'm not so sure about that. Assuming that you mean by "religious", you actually mean a "theist", are that sure one can be 'both' a theist and an evolutionist?

I tend to agree with this individual, even as I mutually disagree with him in regards to Creationism. I think theistic evolutionists are "riding the fence". That is, the one's who really know what they are implying.

http://kindavenue.com/2012/11/30/the-evolutio...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#857 Jun 30, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Expertise is NOT required to gain knowledge about the creation myths that preceded Genesis. A cursory reading of Joseph Campbell's "The Power Of Myth" is enough to get you started, and if you want to become more proficient then you can read the rest of Campbell's works, Frazer's "Golden Bough", and Robert Graves' "The White Goddess."
Two to three weeks of serious reading is all that's needed to clearly see how the Genesis Creation myth was based on older myths.
Joseph Campbell was a pantheist. He's merely pushing 'his' religious view over others. I wouldn't trust his view if I was a "naturalist"!
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#858 Jun 30, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no reason to ponder the idea of a creator in the first place.
Of course there's a difference between 'pondering' and 'pursuing'. I would question someone's honesty if they claimed that they never 'pondered'. I don't think man generally focuses on 'pursuing' God. Quite the opposite really.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 43 min Cookie_Parker 14,659
Proof of God 1 hr Brother James 109
Catholics Mobbing Church Pews 4 hr Hardcore 12
MESSAGE FROM GOD ABOUT these JIHAD RETARDS 4 hr Mr Ironhart 4
The Social Harm of Religion 4 hr Hardcore 102
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3,348
Atonement? 8 hr Truth 209
New Discovery Shows No God Needed To Create Life 8 hr God the son 256
Houston Mayor Says City’s Church Sermon Subpoen... 14 hr QUITTNER Oct 22 2014 81

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE