Were the Earth and animals, etc, created by random chance?

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

Invisible elf: Have we as humans had any previous experiences with invisible elves, that we know of? Any pictures? Any descriptions? Would the description match what we know that animals/humans/physical beings are capable of doing/being? Would believing in an invisible elf be pure and total blind faith?

Believing in an invisible elf is blind faith, which is my point.

Piece of paper: I'm not a piece of paper. I know what one is, and what defines it does not define me.

How do you know that you weren't treated with a chemical to turn you into thinking paper that though it was human?

That's why I don't believe those.

Yet you're willing to believe in God? Anywho, I was using those to show that you can't disprove something unless someone offers proof first, I could, if I felt like it, answer any statement you made about my elf in a way to make it yet harder to detect.

We have better evidence for God, or a creator/designer, than we do for invisible elves, and you know it. This is quite a stretch of an analagous relationship.

You have a book. If I write a book about my elf we're about equal.

Originally Posted by theGA/\/\Er

To my knowledge,I just don't think that all the nothingness in the universe could have just compressed itself,and bam,presto,mass,energy,light,ect. was created,but by nothing? I just don't see how that could be possible,how could nothing make something.Thats like saying,ok,I'am going to make a building,with nothing. How stupid is that.

Did you know that space is full of particles that simply appear out of nothing, hit each other, and then disappear again?

Of corse,there is more bigbang theiories,but I just don't see the bigbang happening.

Then please explain why the universe is expanding and why we can still detect the energy of the big bang.

Believing in an invisible elf is blind faith, which is my point.

Yes, but...

How do you know that you weren't treated with a chemical to turn you into thinking paper that though it was human?

A lack of evidence showing that, though mostly common sense.

Yet you're willing to believe in God? Anywho, I was using those to show that you can't disprove something unless someone offers proof first, I could, if I felt like it, answer any statement you made about my elf in a way to make it yet harder to detect.

Sure, but we know there's really not one in your backyard.

You have a book. If I write a book about my elf we're about equal.

...oh come on, I've explained this many times before. It's not simply writing a book about an elf. Simply writing a book doesn't accomplish much. Comparing a book you wrote about elves and the Bible would be a daunting task, simply because there would be so many ways your book just wouldn't measure up. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Bible, the accuracy of its historicity, the fact that it doesn't contradict itself but rather each book adds greater depth to each of the others, despite the fact that it was written over a period of thousands of years by many different writers who didn't even know each other or communicate with each other (for the most part). Not that these are the only differences, but you can already see why we consider the Bible more than just an average book. This isn't about random chance or the thread topic, but I just thought I'd address it.

Then please explain why the universe is expanding and why we can still detect the energy of the big bang.

Not all creationists disbelieve in a "Big Bang" of sorts. I'm of the opinion that God started the universe at one point and spread it out, much like blowing up a balloon. It's not evidence for evolution, though it's usually included in the whole worldview. I'm not sure how other creationists think the world started if not from a single point as we see it today, other than God just made it as it is now (save for the current expanding of the universe).

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

Yes, but...


A lack of evidence showing that, though mostly common sense.


Sure, but we know there's really not one in your backyard.

Why?

...oh come on, I've explained this many times before. It's not simply writing a book about an elf. Simply writing a book doesn't accomplish much. Comparing a book you wrote about elves and the Bible would be a daunting task, simply because there would be so many ways your book just wouldn't measure up. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Bible,

A bunch of people wanted to record the myths and legends surrounding what they believed.

the accuracy of its historicity,

No, that won't wash. It gets place names and (maybe) rulers right. That's to be expected. Is the book The Grapes of Wrath non-fiction because it accurately describes America during the great depression? No. It's still a work of fiction.

the fact that it doesn't contradict itself but rather each book adds greater depth to each of the others, despite the fact that it was written over a period of thousands of years by many different writers who didn't even know each other or communicate with each other (for the most part).

Oh come on. The Bible does contradict itself. (Or God changed his mind over the years.) Just look at the current Gay rights debate, people cite the old testament. But you also have Jesus telling you to accept everyone. Actually, the old testament is incredibly cruel to any women, children, people of another race, or sick people. Whereas the new testament is the exact opposite. Even if they weren't contradictory the people who wrote the newer books would, of course, have referenced the older books in writing theirs, and what books were included in the Bible was decided, meaning that there were more accounts that were left out, a perfect chance to get rid of anything that was drastically different from the other books.

Not that these are the only differences, but you can already see why we consider the Bible more than just an average book. This isn't about random chance or the thread topic, but I just thought I'd address it.

I, personally, see it about on par with the Iliad or Odessy. A great work, certainly, but of fiction.

Not all creationists disbelieve in a "Big Bang" of sorts. I'm of the opinion that God started the universe at one point and spread it out, much like blowing up a balloon. It's not evidence for evolution, though it's usually included in the whole worldview. I'm not sure how other creationists think the world started if not from a single point as we see it today, other than God just made it as it is now (save for the current expanding of the universe).

Which doesn't contradict the current big bang model. What annoys me are the people who say that reality as we see it couldn't have arisen from the big bang. Not only do they not know what they're talking about, but they refuse to learn. That's who my challenge was addressed to, people like that.

A bunch of people wanted to record the myths and legends surrounding what they believed.

Yes, eyewitnesses to events in the Old Testament, eyewitnesses or a firsthand source in the Gospels, and letters from eyewitnesses or a firsthand (perhaps a secondhand) in the Epistles (the majority of the New Testament), not including Revelation, which was actually written during a vision.

No, that won't wash. It gets place names and (maybe) rulers right. That's to be expected. Is the book The Grapes of Wrath non-fiction because it accurately describes America during the great depression? No. It's still a work of fiction.

I didn't say it proves the Bible right, but it is to be expected from a book of God. Besides, lots of books have historical accuracies (and inaccuracies), but that doesn't mean every book is to be taken as historical fact. Unless you can give me a reason why so many authors over so many years decided to write such a mystical book and why untold millions over the whole Bible's past even before it was completed followed it as it were fact, then I can safely say that it's more than just history.

Oh come on. The Bible does contradict itself. (Or God changed his mind over the years.) Just look at the current Gay rights debate, people cite the old testament. But you also have Jesus telling you to accept everyone. Actually, the old testament is incredibly cruel to any women, children, people of another race, or sick people. Whereas the new testament is the exact opposite. Even if they weren't contradictory the people who wrote the newer books would, of course, have referenced the older books in writing theirs, and what books were included in the Bible was decided, meaning that there were more accounts that were left out, a perfect chance to get rid of anything that was drastically different from the other books.

I don't care if Gay Rights activists quote the Old Testament, if they deliberately twist what it says to support them. I started a thread a while ago, and not only did i not get one real contradiction, but I found out that most people who post them or think of them don't even have a clue what they're doing. If you want to say that the OT is cruel to people, then give specific examples, but don't be so general. And to address the canon, there were other books written by people who might have even been of God, but those were not meant to be in the Bible. True, if there was a contradiction in a book that was being considered for inclusion in the canon, then it would have been discarded, but that is not to say that we're cheating by only placing agreeing books in there. And besides, that is what, I believe is called the Kettle fallacy, saying something like "The kettle wasn't broken when I returned it! And I never borrowed it in the first place."

Which doesn't contradict the current big bang model. What annoys me are the people who say that reality as we see it couldn't have arisen from the big bang. Not only do they not know what they're talking about, but they refuse to learn. That's who my challenge was addressed to, people like that.

The only place where I disagree with the Big Bang, if this is included in the theory, is the idea that it could spontaneously happen without the First Cause. The whole "fake time" that is necessary for the spontaneous expansion (though I know that's not what it's professionally called) has no scientific backing, and is really a disgrace more than a theory. Otherwise, a Big Bang I have no problem with.

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

Yes, eyewitnesses to events in the Old Testament, eyewitnesses or a firsthand source in the Gospels, and letters from eyewitnesses or a firsthand (perhaps a secondhand) in the Epistles (the majority of the New Testament), not including Revelation, which was actually written during a vision.

Only the new testament was, apparently, written by people who saw the events, the rest were passed down for hundreds of years, yet we expect them to remain unchanged?

I didn't say it proves the Bible right, but it is to be expected from a book of God.

It's to be expected from every book set in the present.

Besides, lots of books have historical accuracies (and inaccuracies), but that doesn't mean every book is to be taken as historical fact.

My point exactly.

Unless you can give me a reason why so many authors over so many years decided to write such a mystical book and why untold millions over the whole Bible's past even before it was completed followed it as it were fact, then I can safely say that it's more than just history.

I could ask you the same thing about every religious text for every religion ever.

I don't care if Gay Rights activists quote the Old Testament, if they deliberately twist what it says to support them. I started a thread a while ago, and not only did i not get one real contradiction, but I found out that most people who post them or think of them don't even have a clue what they're doing. If you want to say that the OT is cruel to people, then give specific examples, but don't be so general.

Lessee...
I'm afraid I can't remember specific quotes, but I seem to recall passages about men owning women, various passages about holy men owning slaves (specifically Abraham), etc. Essentially the OT very much reflects the ideas of the time in relation to human rights, namely everyone who isn't a man from your country has none.

And to address the canon, there were other books written by people who might have even been of God, but those were not meant to be in the Bible.

How would one decide this?

True, if there was a contradiction in a book that was being considered for inclusion in the canon, then it would have been discarded, but that is not to say that we're cheating by only placing agreeing books in there.

But it also heavily damages your claim that it must be right because it doesn't contradict itself.

The only place where I disagree with the Big Bang, if this is included in the theory, is the idea that it could spontaneously happen without the First Cause.

I'll have to keep looking for a quote about first cause, but essentially if there was a first cause we couldn't find it, as it would have to be in the universe before the big bang, which will remain ever closed to us. However, that doesn't mean that you can simply put god there and claim that he did it.

The whole "fake time" that is necessary for the spontaneous expansion (though I know that's not what it's professionally called) has no scientific backing, and is really a disgrace more than a theory. Otherwise, a Big Bang I have no problem with.

Actually, it's supported by math. Imaginary Time is quite interesting and is, in fact, perfectly reasonable. It's taken as fact because it's the best explanation out there and is supported by the other theories.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Did you know that space is full of particles that simply appear out of nothing, hit each other, and then disappear again?

Yes, I did know there was that stuff,its called,something like,"Grey matter" or something. But the thing is about that stuff,I just don't see how absolutly nothing,not even air,(no air is in space.)nothing,could possibly make something,it like defies the laws of physics to make something,from nothing. To me,(to me)that does not make any sense how you could make something,from nothing.

Originally Posted by theGA/\/\Er

Yes, I did know there was that stuff,its called,something like,"Grey matter" or something.

Ah, no, you're thinking of dark matter, which isn't what I'm talking about.

But the thing is about that stuff,I just don't see how absolutly nothing,not even air,(no air is in space.)nothing,could possibly make something,it like defies the laws of physics to make something,from nothing. To me,(to me)that does not make any sense how you could make something,from nothing.

Nope, they, in fact, help explain the laws of physics without defying them, as the net energy in the universe stays the same.

Dude nothing existed at all. There couldn't have been any dark matter hanging around, because it wasn't created yet. Also, don't say that something from nothing makes sense, since it makes no sense at all. That's like saying a person has been somewhere when they never have been there. If they haven't been there, they haven't been there. If nothing existed, nothing existed.

Sorry for the long wait, my Internet was down for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

You make it sound like they transformed over night. Evolution takes millions of years and is still progressing. There's no end to an evolution. Even now, humans are much, much taller than their ancestors centuries ago.

I know evolution is a very long process. But, just because something changes over a long time doesn't exactly mean they become a different species all together, just a modified version of the ancestral species. Right?

It's not just random mutations. It's the environmental adaptation that gives organisms the ability to evolve and adapt. The Continental Drift theory is also one of the many sub-theories out there that support this idea. Take some Geography classes and some Biology classes and see for yourself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evo....htm/printable
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/55.html

Enjoy.

I totally agree with environmental adaptation, this is an observable phenomenon. I also know that mutations aren't the only cause of evolution. However, I have a question about mutations. Ok, get ready for an Imaginary Scenario: A child is born without a right arm. This is caused by a genetic mutation, is it not? So, if this person grows up and has a child, will this child also have no right arm? I've never heard of someone with a mutation like that bearing children with similar or the same conditions. Am I wrong about this?

You "heard". It's not "I learned". Therefore, this proves nothing.

Actually, I read it from a site about a book against evolution, or something like that. I can't remember where it is anymore.

Artificial gene manipulation usually cannot be controlled nicely. In addition, how do you know that the scientists didn't purposefully made these flies into sickly creatures so that they would know which gene they should change and which gene they shouldn't change?

I don't, beyond a reasonable doubt. The sorce (which I can't find...Crap), however, seem rather reliable.

According to the theory of adaptation within the evolution, if a species can survive nicely in their own little environment then they can survive. Why should they change in any way when they are living nicely as of now?

You make it sound like they "choose" to evolve.

First, most organisms such as, birds, have similar embryos to each other, including humans' embryos. Second, through DNA inspections, one can compare the smiliarities between one species to another.

And one could say that all these similarities are evidence of an individual Designer, depending on one's perspection on the matter.

Half of those are already biased enough, just like LinkZeldaGanon's source. The other half is from free web servers. Really, do you really trust a site that is hosted on a free server with ads and stuff like that?

Just to clear things up, I was seriously rushed here at this point. So I just got the first few things that appeared on Ask.com and used them. I didn't have time to review them.


[QUOTE=GDwarf]Then I'd get a new biology teacher. You're thinking of mutations as in two heads, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a change that lengthens a bone by a few millimeters, or that causes a few hundred more hairs to grow, not anything drastic like an elephant suddenly growing wings and a beak. Heck, do you know why you don't look like a perfect version of both your parents combined? Random mutations. [QUOTE]

No, I'm not. I didn't mean every natural mutation was negative. Sure, some could have had a rather possitive effect, but perhaps not so much as to aid it in its survival. That just seems to random for me to conseve.

Originally Posted by rand

I can't get myself believe in an allmighty God...
It was the Big Bang that created everything, not God.

I don't know that much about the Big Bang and such things (that I may have proved in the thread 'The universe and earth' in the Temple of Knowledge some time ago...), but I don't belive in God creating it all...

And how would you know this? Were you there at the time of the big bang's expansion? Why does the concept of a God seem so farfetched? In my opinion, saying that everything "just happened" is just as "farfetched" and "simple" as saying "God made it"

Originally Posted by SacredSturgeon

In closing, I'd like to adress one popular argument against evolution: that life can't form on itself and that therefore, there has to be a Creator that created it. I ask this to all those who support this argument: Where did the Creator come from? Please tell me that.

Ok, answer me this: Where did all the matter, antimatter, energy, and laws of physics come from? One might argue that it appeared because there where no laws of physics to stop it from appearing out of nowhere. Why couldn't one apply this logic to a God? They are both equally sensible, but it depends on one's perseption of it.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Did you know that space is full of particles that simply appear out of nothing, hit each other, and then disappear again?

Doesn't that have something to do with Quantum Physics, that particles can exist in two different locations at one time, or something crazy like that? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Oh come on. The Bible does contradict itself. (Or God changed his mind over the years.) Just look at the current Gay rights debate, people cite the old testament. But you also have Jesus telling you to accept everyone. Actually, the old testament is incredibly cruel to any women, children, people of another race, or sick people. Whereas the new testament is the exact opposite. Even if they weren't contradictory the people who wrote the newer books would, of course, have referenced the older books in writing theirs, and what books were included in the Bible was decided, meaning that there were more accounts that were left out, a perfect chance to get rid of anything that was drastically different from the other books.

I do believe that the Old Testiment and the New Testiment are, though greatly relate to eachother, are in a way seperate Sacred Texts? I thought I heard somewhere that the Old Testiment is the Jewish Bible, and the New is the Christian Bible, but heavily relies on the Old? I may be wrong, but if I'm not, this may explain the contridictions.

Lessee...
I'm afraid I can't remember specific quotes, but I seem to recall passages about men owning women, various passages about holy men owning slaves (specifically Abraham), etc. Essentially the OT very much reflects the ideas of the time in relation to human rights, namely everyone who isn't a man from your country has none.

Perhaps God was speaking to the writers of the Old Testiment in ways that they could compare with their culture. I dunno.

Ah, no, you're thinking of dark matter, which isn't what I'm talking about.

Speaking of Dark Matter, isn't that practically an imaginary matter? Do we have any proof or evidnece at all of its existance? I heard that it was "invented" to fill in the gap of the flaw of the Big Bang theory, which is that there isn't enough matter in the universe for the big bang to occur, so they came up with dark matter, or something allong the lines of that?

Originally Posted by Yottabyte

I know evolution is a very long process. But, just because something changes over a long time doesn't exactly mean they become a different species all together, just a modified version of the ancestral species. Right?

Do you know what the dividing line between species is? The ability to reproduce and produce offspring that can also reproduce. There is no barrier in the way of creatures evolving past this point. Besides, if you go back far enough you get an original species that split in two, and those two new ones split in two, etc. etc. It's easy to see where modern species come from.

I totally agree with environmental adaptation, this is an observable phenomenon. I also know that mutations aren't the only cause of evolution. However, I have a question about mutations. Ok, get ready for an Imaginary Scenario: A child is born without a right arm. This is caused by a genetic mutation, is it not? So, if this person grows up and has a child, will this child also have no right arm? I've never heard of someone with a mutation like that bearing children with similar or the same conditions. Am I wrong about this?

It depends. Is the gene recessive? Dominant? It (usually) takes a dominant gene to pass on a trait, and if being born without an arm isn't one then it won't be passed on.
Actually, where did you hear of a guy born without an arm for genetic reasons?

Actually, I read it from a site about a book against evolution, or something like that. I can't remember where it is anymore.

Not exactly the best source, since, as I've shown, they like to lie and twist facts.

I don't, beyond a reasonable doubt. The sorce (which I can't find...Crap), however, seem rather reliable.

Artificially manipulating genes can be quite hard.

You make it sound like they "choose" to evolve.

They don't choose to evolve, no, but the ones with useful mutations stick around, while those with mutations that aren't useful don't. That's called natural selection, and it's why some creatures remain unchanged for millions of years, they're as well suited to their environment as they're likely to get.

And one could say that all these similarities are evidence of an individual Designer, depending on one's perspection on the matter.

First one would have to prove the existence of the designer and come up with a theory that can explain everything that evolution can, is falsifiable, and makes predictions.

No, I'm not. I didn't mean every natural mutation was negative. Sure, some could have had a rather possitive effect, but perhaps not so much as to aid it in its survival. That just seems to random for me to conseve.

Tell you what, let's say that the average generation of all life is a year (That's way on the high side, but meh.), let's then say that 99% of all mutations are bad. (Also a drastic overestimate.), if we then give life 3 billion years we get 30 000 000 positive mutations, per species.

And how would you know this? Were you there at the time of the big bang's expansion? Why does the concept of a God seem so farfetched? In my opinion, saying that everything "just happened" is just as "farfetched" and "simple" as saying "God made it"

No, since the universe as we understand it allows it to just happen, it does not allow a God to exist.

Ok, answer me this: Where did all the matter, antimatter, energy, and laws of physics come from? One might argue that it appeared because there where no laws of physics to stop it from appearing out of nowhere. Why couldn't one apply this logic to a God? They are both equally sensible, but it depends on one's perseption of it.

Matter and Antimatter are energy, the laws of physics are simply how matter acts towards other matter.

Anyways, they appear and vanish all the time, right now space is chock full of particles quite literally appearing out of nowhere, hitting their counterpart and vanishing.

Doesn't that have something to do with Quantum Physics, that particles can exist in two different locations at one time, or something crazy like that? Correct me if i'm wrong.

It is quantum mechanics, but it's not one particle in two places.

I do believe that the Old Testiment and the New Testiment are, though greatly relate to eachother, are in a way seperate Sacred Texts? I thought I heard somewhere that the Old Testiment is the Jewish Bible, and the New is the Christian Bible, but heavily relies on the Old? I may be wrong, but if I'm not, this may explain the contridictions.

Jewish people only use the old testament, Christians use both.

Speaking of Dark Matter, isn't that practically an imaginary matter? Do we have any proof or evidence at all of its existance? I heard that it was "invented" to fill in the gap of the flaw of the Big Bang theory, which is that there isn't enough matter in the universe for the big bang to occur, so they came up with dark matter, or something allong the lines of that?

Nope, it's real, heck, a picture was recently taken of some. I'll give you a brief story of how it was found.

Back not too long ago it was discovered that the universe was expanding, and doing so at quite a rapid rate. This was confirmed by several different kinds of observations and the rate of expansion was recorded. Later on it was found that the rate of expansion was increasing. Now, unless there was some bizarre repulsive force that we couldn't detect the universe shouldn't be doing that. Eventually a theory was made that there was a tonne of matter out there, but it didn't emit or reflect light, thus the name 'dark matter'. The equations for it showed that there was a heck of a lot of it, but if it wasn't there then the laws of physics had to be scrapped, so they assumed it was (since the laws of physics had a perfect track record up to that point.). Anyways, as I mentioned above, it has recently been photographed, confirming it's existence for all those who hate theories.

Do you know what the dividing line between species is? The ability to reproduce and produce offspring that can also reproduce. There is no barrier in the way of creatures evolving past this point. Besides, if you go back far enough you get an original species that split in two, and those two new ones split in two, etc. etc. It's easy to see where modern species come from.

True, new species may form, but they are still of the same "kind." I don't know exactly what the word "kind" in the Bible means, but I do know what it means in English, and it translates well enough for me. Dogs give birth to dogs. It's a fact. I don't know of anything recorded in history or science telling me otherwise. No matter what offspring a dog has, if a child asks you what kind of animal that puppy is, you'll say, "Why, that kind of animal is a dog."

While I believe speciation to be possible, it's not evidence for Evolution, rather it's just an expansion of what Creationists know to be true -- the God-given ability of adaptation.

I have just one thing to say:

God created scientists.

Originally Posted by pipking

I have just one thing to say:

God created scientists.

Amen brother!

God also created free will for these scientists, and with this free will comes the option of denying the existance of God. And in so denying the existance of a greater being these scientists make themeselves the greatest being. And so denying God's existance becomes very attractive.

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

True, new species may form, but they are still of the same "kind." I don't know exactly what the word "kind" in the Bible means, but I do know what it means in English, and it translates well enough for me. Dogs give birth to dogs. It's a fact. I don't know of anything recorded in history or science telling me otherwise. No matter what offspring a dog has, if a child asks you what kind of animal that puppy is, you'll say, "Why, that kind of animal is a dog."

While I believe speciation to be possible, it's not evidence for Evolution, rather it's just an expansion of what Creationists know to be true -- the God-given ability of adaptation.

Given enough time though, you must agree that eventually the changes will add up to a new kind. The only reason they wouldn't would be if some kind of undetectable and artificial barrier was placed in their way, which seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

True, new species may form, but they are still of the same "kind." I don't know exactly what the word "kind" in the Bible means, but I do know what it means in English, and it translates well enough for me. Dogs give birth to dogs. It's a fact. I don't know of anything recorded in history or science telling me otherwise. No matter what offspring a dog has, if a child asks you what kind of animal that puppy is, you'll say, "Why, that kind of animal is a dog."

While I believe speciation to be possible, it's not evidence for Evolution, rather it's just an expansion of what Creationists know to be true -- the God-given ability of adaptation.

So you believe in a barrier, but you don't know where the barrier is? Why do you think speciation is possible, but evolution beyond "kind" isn't? Please try to defind kind, because until then, it's quite meaningless.

If "dog" is a kind, and you're only going by name, then we've certainly seen evolution of new kinds. Wolves are not dogs, but they're in the same species.

You're also making a strawman. Nobody claims a dog is going to give birth to anything other than a dog. That's not how evolution works. That's how Kent Hovind thinks evolution works.


Lastly, I'm curious about something - do you think evolution is impossible, or do you simply think it hasn't occured? You mention that you haven't seen any historical record of it happening, but I'm more curious to know - do you think evolution, creating new "kinds," is possible?

Originally Posted by theGA/\/\Er

Well, I don't argue with evolutionist,they got a different belife thats fine by me,but its like what Exrogeneral said,"do we just cease to exist?" Well, no, because we have have spirts,and where those spirts go to,Heaven,or Hell.

Yes you can argue with the evolutionists. They all say that we came from somthing like an ape or bug or whatever, but there is a missing link to it all. So they are all just a bunch of crazies believing in anything, in my oppinion. And it depends what your spirit beleives in.

Originally Posted by jesusworshiper

Yes you can argue with the evolutionists. They all say that we came from somthing like an ape or bug or whatever, but there is a missing link to it all. So they are all just a bunch of crazies believing in anything, in my oppinion. And it depends what your spirit beleives in.

As I've said, every fossil is a missing link.

Anyways, I rather resent being called gullible and crazy. Also, why, exactly, should you trust what your gut tells you? I can assure you now that it's often wrong. After all, people's gut tells them to believe in Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism. It tells them to be Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican. It tells them to be conservative, to be liberal, to support the death penalty, to disdain all punishment, etc. Everyone's gut can't be right, so why is yours right about this when you don't have the evidence to back it up?

Originally Posted by jesusworshiper

Yes you can argue with the evolutionists. They all say that we came from somthing like an ape or bug or whatever, but there is a missing link to it all. So they are all just a bunch of crazies believing in anything, in my oppinion. And it depends what your spirit beleives in.

Exactly. Who do they think they are? I've never seen rocks grow into birds, but these idiots keep saying it. They all say the fossils proove it, but guess what: the fossill record is incomplete! There are no transitional fossils ever discovered. If animals really changed, why dont we find any focils? Also the 2nd law of thermaldymonics states that evilution isn't true.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Exactly. Who do they think they are? I've never seen rocks grow into birds, but these idiots keep saying it. They all say the fossils proove it, but guess what: the fossill record is incomplete! There are no transitional fossils ever discovered. If animals really changed, why dont we find any focils? Also the 2nd law of thermaldymonics states that evilution isn't true.

A wee bit annoyed, are we?

Oh, and Jesusworshiper, I strongly recommend that you actually learn what evolution says before you go around bashing it, the fact that you have to say 'or whatever' shows that you don't know the topic and that hardly puts you in a place to criticize it or those who feel that it is correct.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

A wee bit annoyed, are we?

Oh, and Jesusworshiper, I strongly recommend that you actually learn what evolution says before you go around bashing it, the fact that you have to say 'or whatever' shows that you don't know the topic and that hardly puts you in a place to criticize it or those who feel that it is correct.

Okay, but the reason I was 'bashing' because I've been brought up to not beleive in evolution. And I have watched a few documentaries about evolution. I have questioned it and thought if it could be true, I admit, but the more I think about it the more it sounds stupid. No offense, but I don't think it's true. And there is more to Jesus being existant, than evolution. The Arc of Covenant, Noah's Ark, Jesus' brother James, and the Mount Siani where the Exodus was found.