Evolution vs. Creation

[MikeF]

Langoliers wrote:

Most of the water from the flood came from the fountains of the deep. And only when God ended the flood did he raise up the mountains and lower the ocean floors. Try and keep up.

And the evidence for this is what exactly?

Langoliers wrote:

Now try and understand that the word dinosaurs is a word that was invented recently. The Bible does describe them however under other names "Behemoth" and "Dragons". Rather funny the Bible describing your dinosaurs thousands of years before the first bones were found.

A Fred Flintstone fan, I see.

[Kong_]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of the water from the flood came from the fountains of the deep. And only when God ended the flood did he raise up the mountains and lower the ocean floors. Try and keep up.

Please provide the Bible verse where this ("mountains up, ocean floors down") is specified.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Repeat this 1,000 times.

To yourself, please.

[Langoliers]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>You miss the point.

We would expect the chronicles of the Bible to increasingly conform to historical evidence, the more recent the records, especially in the era when events could be recorded as they happened. Myth blending into legend blending into history.

Before the era of writing and allegedly written down in the time of Moses, the myths of Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, the Tower of Babel, Methuselah etc, all have absolutely no physical evidence and the pure flavour of creation myth.

Claiming that the real existence of say Babylon proves the earlier claims of the Bible is as silly as claiming that the real existence of Troy proves Homer's contention that Achilles was the son of the river goddess Thetis.

The proof of King David only proves that the Bible (the only documentation of King David previously) was validated in respect of its information on King David.

[GatorBUILT]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Quite educative. May God bless you...

Educative? WTF LMFAOOLOLOLOL...try EDUCATIONAL, dumbass

[Kong_]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Please provide the Bible verse where this ("mountains up, ocean floors down") is specified.
<quoted text>
Repeat this 1,000 times.
To yourself, please.

Pardon me. I meant to specify the Bible verse ***POST FLOOD*** where said actions ("mountains up, ocean floors down") is specified.

You **DO** realize that if all those forces happened within a month or so after a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis, that the entire surface of the earth would likely still be in a molten state, and the oceans of the earth would have long since evaporated, and there would be no life on earth.....right?

[GatorBUILT]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Go through your own shit you call a post.

Translation: Soy, Ga, it's just too EDUCATIVE for me...EPIC FAIL...and your posts keep getting shorter and more glib...losing ye faith, are we...LMFAOOLOLOLOL...stupid is as stupid doesn't read...unless it's a book of magic Jews and converted pagans, eh? You'll be gone soon enough, or just change your namne, as ALL you fundiots do...tell me is there a website where you trolls huddle up and try to- err- fail to ever prsent a cogent argument...seems you fools come out of every crevice, ever so often and then run whe the light of reality is shone upon your fables...and I bet you lie to your children about SAntaCLaus( real name: St NMicolas of Myra:http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Saint_Nicholas...bet you won't tell the THE TRUTH...you'll just lie for Yahweh...of course, as always SEE YOU IN HELL, oh beaerer of false witness, vainglory and prideful sinner...ye shall feel the wrath of Yahweh when you are judged and PROVEN a liar(as Yahweh has a GREAT net connection!)...don't worry, Hell has a great house band, awesome drink specials, and the chicks...whoa...the chicks are just plentiful, beautiful and EDUCATED...not those prude, sassed-up, Catholic girls I used to bang behind the rectory...or is that in the rectory?!? Either way...don't bring your buzzkill mentality, becuase we kick the crap out of downers like you, BIBLICAL STYLE!

[GatorBUILT]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
No it's official writings in stone that revealed the proof of King David and the house of David.
Atheist long used King David as proof that the Bible was not historically accurate. Then they find the proof that King David did in fact exist exactly as the Bible described. And atheist try and trash that proof. Here's to trying to have it both ways.

And thee are 1000s of Far East(Chinese) depictions of DRAGONS on lots of royal/civilain pieces...doesn't make them any more real...you idiots were first jerking off over the Shroud of Turin, then ooops, it's a 14th century relic...dang...next comes finding the Ark in Turkey...oops, just a satellite photo with a stange looking outcrop 'resembling' the prow of a ship...oops, daaaaang...then there was the JAmes Ossuary...oops, faked by relic salesfolk...do I really need to tell you about the TEMPLES built to Zeus, Athena, Helen, etc, etc, etc...finding archaelogical evidence merely provides CONTEXT...I'm sure 2,000 years from now, your kind will SWEAR that humans were giants back in the day...look at that statue of LAdy Liberty...she's AWESOME...

Tell me: Don't you ever get tired of shoehorning your tripe into a box to make your delusions palatable? Your denials are hilarious...stubborn...but hilarious...meanwhile back at the REALITY FARM, the sun will rise for many more eons...religion keeps growing smaller and smaller as knowledge becomes GREATER AND GREATER..it is after all why ' devoutly relgious' seems to be a synonym for proactively ignorant...but don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth...as YOU See it: BLINDLY, IGNORANTLY, and CONTEXTUALLY(Um, you forgot the Apocrypha and the Gospel of MAry in your cut-and-paste-what-you-want style), tsk tsk...lying for Yahweh, are we? SEE YOU IN HELL

[Langoliers]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>And Troy existed just as the Illyad described. Therefore Zeus is real.

If you got a problem with atheists I suggest you take it up with them.

I don't have a problem with atheist in fact I think everyone should own one.

[Langoliers]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>Didn't care. Rhetorical dismissals don't address the evidence. It doesn't matter a bit if Darwin was Ghengis Khan. It has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution. Tycho Brahe was an ahole but that doesn't falsify astronomy.(shrug)

If you say so.

[Langoliers]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>You don't seem to understand that we don't give a flying fig about your baseless religious opinions.

Langoliers wrote, "Makes no difference what you think you have against the Bible."

I know it makes no difference because evidence is irrelevant to you. If something supports the Bible, great. If it doesn't, make something up.(shrug)

Langoliers wrote, "See I also know how Satan works."

Of course you do. Which is because you have objectively demonstrated its existence in a scientific manner via the scientific method.

Oh, wait.

:-/

Langoliers wrote, "Gods word is like sowing seeds, some sprout and gets choked out by weeds some lands on rocks and never takes root while some lands in fertile land and produces a bumper crop."

You're preaching again.

Who's "We"?

[GatorBUILT]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Well true to form you don't know what the hell your talking about .Hitler even had a list of where the races were on the scale.Number one were the Aryans, 2. were the nordic type peoples, whites in general , then the asians with, followed by colors,blacks then jews.Hitler didn't give a shit about the church or christians,ask Dietrich Bonhoffer.

And as JRR Tolkien(a proud British subject of GErman descent) said in a letter to the Nazis: Aryan is a Linguistic commonality of INdo-Iranian languages, NOT A RACE...or as Cavilli-Svorza said: race is merely a socio-political construct of NO SCIENTIFIC VALUE...as usual, Hitler was WRONG, and hence so are you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jrr_tolkien#Poli...

But, again, don't let the FACTS cloud your delusion...

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Computers contain organic compounds already, and the term "organic computer" does not mean "made of organic material" as you stated, idiot. They are two completely different things. Sheesh, did you drop out of school in kindergarten?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocomputers#Eng...

The development of biocomputers has been made possible by the expanding new science of nanobiotechnology. The term nanobiotechnology can be defined in multiple ways; in a more general sense, nanobiotechnology can be defined as any type of technology that uses both nano-scale materials, i.e. materials having characteristic dimensions of 1-100 nanometers, as well as biologically based materials....

"as well as biologically based materials...."

(bi·o·log·i·cal...
Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms...)

[xxxooxxx]

GatorBUILT wrote:

<quoted text>
No, moron, a cult, has a LEADER, a dogma, a set of RITULAS based in religion...a central tenet which that LEADER demands be followed(like Moses, Jesus, MOhammed..all Abrahamic CULTS)...science, has no leader, no rituals, nothing that DEMANDS obedience to this cult, etc, etc...though 1000s of religious cultists are proud, productive scientists...don't try to expand or redefine a word to shoehorn your crap into...WE AREN'T cult followers, fool...much to your chagrin...science is a cult like invisible is a color...watching yet another FUNDIOT go down in flames is just too boring at this point....why not try the CREATION SCIENCE stuff..at least you'll have some info that can be discussed...then summarily smote...LOL

Science even has mythology...as well as cults...Star trek is just one example of science mythology.

a horse by any other name ...

[xxxooxxx]

Definition of CULT
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

adherents plural of ad·her·ent
Noun
Someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.
Synonyms
followers

[Alien Outlaw]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
All the evidence that supports evolution and you having no evidence to support your god.

Their God is real to them. Its just not the God they worship and were taught to believe was real. Its many Gods from the cosmos. They descended from the heavens(in human form, able to copy human image and make humans perceive it as real and human) and the primitive human animal wrote a book that totally warped the truth. A book that the masses would accept as real and true. Because the truth would only make life seem unreal......even today its not something humans accept as possible. Yet, a guy walked on water, ascended, descended, split the sea, turned water into wine, a guy build a big boat and packed it with animals, a guy built wings and the wings melted, they stoned, beat, stabbed and nailed a guy to a cross topped with a crown of thorns.......WOW! Imagination running wild. It better than the truth......it scary!

[xxxooxxx]

Science is a set of ideas...and it has adherents to these set of ideas.

So by definition it's a cult.

[xxxooxxx]

Examples of CULT( merriam-webster.com )

She has developed a cult following.

<long after it had gone off the air, the TV series continued to have a huge cult>

[xxxooxxx]

xxxooxxx wrote:

Definition of CULT
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
adherents plural of ad·her·ent
Noun
Someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.
Synonyms
followers

So http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cul... is spam and cluless...?

lol

[xxxooxxx]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Science even has mythology...as well as cults...Star trek is just one example of science mythology.
a horse by any other name ...

my·thol·o·gy
/m&#601;&#712;THäl &#601;j&#275;/
Noun

A collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
A set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.

[Langoliers]

GatorBUILT wrote:

<quoted text>And thee are 1000s of Far East(Chinese) depictions of DRAGONS on lots of royal/civilain pieces... we? HELL

"And thee are 1000s of Far East(Chinese) depictions of DRAGONS on lots of royal/civilain pieces"

Yes I know. And we have museum full of their bones.

"All new atheist population around the world!

"Atheism losing adherents in terms of the global population

The 2004 to 2007 publicity campaign for atheism in the Western World was not sustainable. The level of public interest in atheism is not coming back in the West and global atheism is shrinking.

See also: Global atheism and American atheism and Atheist Population and Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.

In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents .

The American Spectator declared:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding.

In 2009, the book A sceptics guide to atheism indicated: "A worldwide poll taken in 1991 put the global figure for atheists at just 4.4% of the population. By 2006 it was estimated that only 2% of the world population were atheists."

In 2012 an article entitled Atheism in decline by Nigel Tomes declared:
The IBMR publishes yearly figures for religions (and non religions) around the globe. Their latest numbers, hot off the press (Jan. 2012) show some interesting trends.

Atheism is in Decline
In 1970 atheists (those avowing there is no God) numbered 166 million worldwide; that was almost one-in-twenty 4.5% of the global population. By 2012 atheists number is estimated at 137 million. Thats a decline of almost 30 million. Since world population is growing, atheists share declined to less than one-in-fifty under 2% in 2012. Put differently, every 24 hours there are 800 fewer atheists in the world!

Atheism is in decline.
Agnosticism is in Decline
In 2000 agnostics (those who don't know if there is a God) numbered 666 million, 10.9% of the worlds people. By 2012 agnostic number is estimated at 661 million--a decline of 5 million. In relative terms by 2012 agnostics represent less than one tenth (9.4%) of world population. Every 24 hours there are 1,100 less agnostics in the world. Agnostics are also in decline.
Added together these two groups make up a declining share of global population. In 1970 atheists and agnostics accounted for one-in-five (19.2%) of the worlds people. Based on current trends by 2025 they will represent less than one-in-ten (9.7%). Their population share will fall by half in 50+ years."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism