Story Comments
Posted by: RickyDawkins 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand what you mean when you say "couldn't come naturally". Science tells us that the earth formed billions of years ago, from star dust. Mind-boggling complexity is readily achievable through evolution and selection (and time), this is a proven fact.
I find it impossible (as you do?) to believe that everything we see just came from "nothing".
I don't mind discussing the concept of God (obviously), however I just don't see any reason to buy into a random tale.
Did He just come from nowhere?
Isn't this something you need to at least consider?
I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question:
Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
Please explore this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky: The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. He said that He was one with God the Father. He takes precedence to your false science.
Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there.
You postulate that the concept of God is "a random tale," but you know better. There is a long record, which you may reject it's truth, but you know it's not random.
Then your practice is to ask many crafted leading questions, but they have different answers than you would accept, unless you had your eyes opened to the truth:
" Did He just come from nowhere? Isn't this something you need to at least consider? I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question: Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
First you poison the well, expecting a "dodge." Cont'd>>
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, maybe you missed it, you're posting on a PUBLIC board which makes anything you post open for anyone to comment on, especially when its way off base. Maybe you can indulge us all and explain how my comment was inappropriate to the tissue when it illustrated the point very clearly. But then again when all you can post are strawman arguments I wont expect too much.
Reply -
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problem, but you came into a reply giving a contribution that didn't apply.
I have no problem interacting with others, but it helps to be on the same page. Not even those with whom we initially give reply are always on the same page. So, no big thing.
WMD's being in Iraq are not established history, but current events that are in controversy. So, not too good in making a point, but seems more like a political statement, that has missed the target. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, although I think that the war was inevitable, since Saddam admitted to plans to develop WMD's, I consider GWB was a bit hasty in the conflict. We should have had better understanding of the age old conflicts of the area & had strategy to avoid the pitfalls in which we found.
BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice.
HooRah! -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, I believe the justification for the war was he HAD WMD and was planning on using them not he was thinking about making them. If that is the case we should turn our atttention alittle SouthEast and plan for the invaion of Israel since they seem to not only be planning but not fessing up to having them either.
"BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice"
ROFLMAO, and pixie fairie dust has been found to cure cancer.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rev. Silverghost, thank you for your input. (i apologize for poisoning the well, btw)
So, what of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?
When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
To me, its just a random fairy tale, like that of Mohammed, or Tom Thumb. Sure you can say its "true" all you like, but its still just ideas, nothing concrete.
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What else do you not believe about established history?"
The part when the sun stoped his movement arround the earth. =P
Come on, I know that you are Christian, but do you really thing that there is "incontrovertible empirical" evidence that Jesus indeed arose from the dead? I know that you believe is true, and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. But as far as I know there is more evidence for the divine origin of the image of the virgin of Guadalupe than for the resurection of Jesus.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx, Ricky, for that. I was a little slow getting my continuation before your reply.
"What of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?" The answer is in my continuation below, given by King David. Also Paul gave answer to that in Romans 1. The testimony of God is in each individual, but we corrupt it, worshiping the creation, rather than the creator.
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
It goes beyond "just ideas." -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Rev:
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.....
Would the Bible be one of these proofs??I am serious here?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, HB, it is a part of history & archaeological data, just the same as hieroglyphic tablets, graphics on cave walls, etc.
Two British archaeologists, towards the beginning of the 20th C., set out separately in attempts to discover finds that would disprove the Bible. As they searched, they only discovered confirming material. When these colleagues met, they were astonished at the similar results of confirmation. One became a preacher.
Other finds have confirmed Biblical accuracy, but I know of no valid claims to disproof. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
archaeological finds?? I don't think so.
A Jesus story that has been verified by eyewitnesses & handed down through the centuries-
When Jesus walked on water John rushed up to him & said Lord tis a true miracle what you just did.
Jesus looked at him & replied " Miracle?? Step on the stones, John!"
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RickyDawkins-When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
this is for you ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> Secondly, the answer to your only true question here, Biblically, is that God is Eternal, He wasn't created.
I know that doesn't fit under your "science" microscope, but you aren't able to fit many other questions there either. Yet there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for our sins.
You admit that there is imperfection in man & the universe, but you wish to set yourself up as judge to how that happened.
Your not that old to have been there! LOL
God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God, thus causing the degeneration that you see in the world & universe.
But King David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (atmospheric earth)." He goes on to say that God's creation declares this truth to all people on the earth. Evidence. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, good, Hannibal! I'm glad you know the story about Jacob.
My Question for you: Did you ever wrestle with your child or someone else's? Although you could completely overcome the child, did you smash it? It there was some purpose in the struggle to teach something, would that be necessarily strange?
Because there is an unexpected outcome, doesn't say the teacher was wrong. There were other factors with the incident with Jacob. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God..."
Yet in this perfect world roamed another of God creations, Lucifer, who tried to be as high as God himself and was cast down and became Satan, who was the one who convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and on an on....
So my question is how was it a perfect world if this snake oil salesman was allow to roam free?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wasn't addressing you, saying, "you know enough Scripture," but Ricky.
However, you do know a little about Scripture it seems, but I don't have experience knowing how much you know.
God had created Lucifer, the Chief of the angels, as a perfect being, but he chose to rebel. The Scripture shows that God puts limits on Satan, but also uses his antics to effect his purposes in man.
There was a free choice for Adam, whether to obey God in Eden or not. Satan was an instrument that allowed the test, in which Adam failed.
But God provided the way to forgiveness & reconciliation, through Christ. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there".
What is this "false premise" you speak of? You speak of leading questions than pose strawman arguments.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God's Holy Word says that people would rather believe a lie than the truth which He has revealed.
A geologist, whom I personally know & who was a former archaeological museum curator, realized 1 day that he supported his calculations for ages of bones by circular reasoning, which is false science. In subsequent studies, He realized that all existing evidence demonstrates sudden appearance of life, which has been confirmed by many other credited scientists.
There is no extant evidence for gradual appearance of life, therefore the theory of evolution rests upon a false premise. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, so lets say the evidence demonstrates sudden appearence of life(I think I know where you're going, but I really want to know more about this), so how many creations there were? Because the fosil record demonstrates species "appeared" at diferent times, doesn't it?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. There was only one creation. I appreciate your kind questioning, Coati.
There are sedimentary deposits that give evidence to floods or great movements of earth surface. Yet the lowest stratum obviously came first. On those lower strata, complex life forms exist.
God created different species that had capacity within their genetic code to develop different varieties of that same species, but not new species. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, "complex" animals as trilobites can be found in the lower stratus, but still reptiles, are first found in superior strata, dinosaurs and birds in an even superior strata, and mammals in another superior one, and noticing that T-Rexes, Trilobites, and Dimetrodonts aren't found in the same layer so it's obvious that they didn't coexist between each other and with us.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bones do not appear in the fossil record of life until 500 or so million years ago, even though we have evidence of life existing 3.8 Billion years ago, that's at least 3 Billion years before bones evolved. My question is, how do you define "sudden"?
Evolution does not address the appearance of life, just that life is related and it has been changing and adapting ever since that appearance. Your misconception of evolution is the only false premise.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A recent argument from evolutionists is that they are not addressing the appearance of life, but the history of the movement states otherwise.
If there were billions of years involved, there would have been a different experience for astronauts when they landed on the moon. They expected many feet of cosmic dust to have collected, but they only found less than an inch, indicating a young moon.
Scientists don't always follow scientific procedure in processing their theories. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin's famous book is called, "Origin of Species", not Origin of Life. What do you mean by 'recent'?
The moon dust argument? LOL Apparently you didn't get the memo that even the Christian website, "answers in genesis" has given up on that tired argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx Smithi: I considered this, as did the author at AIG, "a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation." Since both sides should go back to the drawing board for new data, I will relinquish the inaccuracy of the old claim & wait to see fresh data. But see that the culpability is on both sides:
"Interestingly, Snelling and Rush's research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction...and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2"
"Creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges."
That's good to know. Thanx 4 the link. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're welcome Silver. I rarely, if ever, agree with AIG but I had to share this link and I do agree with your last quote. We all must be prepared to re-examine arguments when presented with new and better data. That is the bedrock of both scientific inquiry and plain old common sense. My hat's off to both you and AIG for admiting to the inaccuracy and commiting to stop the spread of incorrect data and misinformation, on at least this one point.
The culpability isn't on "both sides", instead it belongs with anyone who would knowingly use incorrect data in an attempt to support their argument. It should be noted the 'anti-creationists' cited are Calvinist Theological Evolutionists.
Here's a link about how the original mismeasurements, made from material collected on Earth were made and how they were called "the best measurements", even though far more accurate data, collected from space, was widely known.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: Technically, I was concerned with using the term, "culpability," but it certainly does apply to those who willingly present false data to bolster their position. I try to distance myself from that attitude in myself or others.
Thanx 4 the new link. I'll have top check it out later...in a rush. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think if you look into it you will find the evidence for a 'young Earth' is quite lacking and the evidence of an Earth with an age of 4.6 Billion years is very compelling. As is the evidence of evolution.
With that said, I don't see how evolution or a 4.6 Billion year old Earth should be a problem for a believer in an all powerful god. I am confident that with enough time religions that include dogma that runs contrary with evolution or an ancient Earth will go the same as those whose dogma includes a flat Earth or a Sun that orbits the Earth.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: In my experience, the kind of Christians that believe in a young earth, also know enough to agree with Christopher Columbus, who defied the flat earth die hards. He saw that in Isaiah 40:22, it spake of the circle of the earth. When he look across "flat" waters, he could see the arch of the horizon, confirming in his mind that the Scriptures indicate a round earth. So, he dared to sail the Atlantic.
The kind of people with whom I associate, seriously study the Scriptures, not taking man's philosophies over what God said. God said that He created the Heaven and the earth, animals, plants & man in 6 days. The language has been studied for accuracy of meaning & the Hebrew for day in this case means a 24 hour period.
We seek to honor valid scientific discovery & processing of theories, but honor God 1st in what He says, believing that He doesn't make mistakes. We haven't seen Him proven wrong. Cont'd>>
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silver- I know that I am not as familiar with your bible as you, but I do know there are a number of references to a flat Earth with an orbiting sun, not to mention that "circle of Earth" can still imply a flat Earth as it say's 'circle' not sphere.
Now, if you are moved by the word the circle into thinking your god was telling us of a round Earth all along, what do you make of these lines from Genesis? 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth grass... 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth...1:24 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature...
I have come across Christians who believe the above lines refer to evolution in much the same way you believe Isaiah 40:22 refers to a spherical Earth.
IMHO, the bible is long enough and vague enough, that lines can be found to support any position, but that's another matter.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: There are no references to a flat earth in the Bible. The only "difficulty" is wording such as: "The sun rises...", being a problem of communication. This is the way we speak: The sun rises, sets...the stars come out, etc.
As far as Columbus was concerned, he believed that God was talking of a spherical earth, the Hebrew, "khoog," meaning circle or circumference. He saw the roundness of the horizon.
As you quoted Gen. 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." The next verse (context!): "And God created..." Again, v.24: "Let the earth bring forth..." Next verse! "And God made..."
The contention that the Bible is "vague" is dispelled by "Come now & let us reason together, saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18.
To "support any position" is a fallacy of proper interpretation, which can be also dispelled, but "that's another matter," I agree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> That is not to say that we can't be wrong on certain issues. Yet when God says something plainly & someone comes along & defies that plain statement, we have a problem agreeing with that thinking.
The Bible speaks of the hidden things of God. Sometimes appearances are there to conceal the truth from those who don't wish to honor Him or haven't quite come that far to understand. The geologist of whom I spake earlier, had ultimately realized that he & his colleagues had used circular reasoning in dating earth's fossils & it's strata. This is after a Christian repeatedly asked him how he established the age of these items. He finally admitted to himself the false basis on which he relied.
There are a large group of highly credited scientists who do not agree that the earth is billions of yrs old. In my studies, looking at what both sides of this issue say, I agree with the young earth position. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yet when God says something plainly".
If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed. Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least.
The half life of radioactive elements is not based on circular reasoning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-eart...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: "If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed." This doesn't seem to bear logic. The Bible is communicating what God said. As it states, "Thus saith the Lord..."
"Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least." I don't rely on imagining (mysticism), but that the Bible claims God's authorship, as Peter, Paul, John & Jesus Christ maintained in the N.T., often referring to O.T. passages as well. The Bible speaks of God's preservation of the Scriptures, which has been accomplished.
Editing is only accomplished in unfaithful modern translations, but not in the KJV, for which we have the preserved original words in extant manuscripts to compare.
I appreciate the link. While Chris Stassen has a studied reasoning, he does indicate that other scientists disagree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did some research earlier today on the origin of life, specifically spontaneous generation, where the first organic life form arose from inorganic chemicals. It took a while to find an article from an evolutionist that tackled the question of how that first single-cell life emerged. At the end of that rather lengthy and very detailed study, the author (I'm sorry, I'm now at a different computer and can't remember his name, I'll get it tomorrow) said most research papers end with conclusions. However, this one must end with assumptions. We can only ASSUME that first self-replication organic life form was the result of random acts of nature on inorganic chemicals, and so on. I'll provide the exact quote and link tomorrow.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you notice, I said nothing of the origin of life, just that it has been evolving for at least 3.8 billion years, which is the age of the oldest known Earth rocks. Earlier evidence, including the evidence of how life originated are lost to the ages. In short we don't know how life originated on Earth and likely never will, however, I personally fail to see the reasoning that magic should be inserted when faced with an unknown.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason you won't find "evolutionist" scholarly papers about the origin of life is pretty simple. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It is a study of observable evidence of changes through natural selection. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. A more appropriate area of research would be the creation of new life in the laboratory.
Craig Venter, the DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals, The implications of creating a new life form are staggering to say the least.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/TenWays/story?i...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/g...
Allegedly what is holding up the official announcement is the "patenting" of the new life form. (Can a lifeform be patented? etc.)
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. ? ?
The whole concept of evolution begins with that first single cell organism. Without it, evolution would not be possible. Scientists just have no reasonable explaination of how that first organism came to be.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The link I referred to and a quote: http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
"These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (Modern Library), is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Macro-evolution is evolution at the 'speciation' level, i.e. the appearance of new species.
I suggest you investigate the 'Nylon Bug' which is a new species of bacteria that feeds on nylon waste. I'd also suggest you look into 'ring species'. Both are examples of macro-evolution.
The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' as it applies to evolution is largely artificial. Micro-evolution naturally proceeds to macro-evolution after the amount of changes between populations of organisms is so great that individual members of the genetically distinct populations can no longer interbreed.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SU: The distancing from the position of spontaneous origin of life is a recent phenomenon among the beleaguered evolutionists, because they have no credible answer to its veracity, aside from having been there, when it supposedly happened. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole concept of evolution begins with the first KNOWN single celled organisms, evidence for which is found in the oldest known Earth rocks of 3.8 Billion years old. Only creationists think that life began as a fully formed cell as we know them today.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this is true, at least there is a plausible basis for assumption of a first self-replicating life form.
There is no basis to assume magic, the supernatural, or any of the religious stories are more than folktales used to indoctrinate and pass on folklore.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution is proven each flu season, with each new pesticide and herbicide that needs to be devolped, it is proven by the DNA in each and every one of your cells that tells us something of the history of billions of years of life and lifes relations.
You can pretend that a paternity test isn't proof of paternity but it won't keep you from having to pay child support. Why? Because genetics is hard evidence that has proven to be very accurate to the degree we trust it to decide matters of life and death. Tests similar to paternity tests show that all life is related, just as Darwin predicted before anything was known of the field of genetics.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: That is microevolution, which is why some scientists call it a "new strain." Some may dare to say that it is a new species, but that is arbitrary.
The so-called "nylon bug" is still a bacterium, it has not developed into another organism.
"All life is related..." They have the same Creator. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BigBadJohn6661 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God is supposed to be all powerfull and can do anything and every thing. He is supposed to know everything, past, present and future. When he made me, he knew if I would go to heaven or hell. If he knew I would go to hell then there would be no way I could make it to heaven (why continue to create me, why didn't he stop right there). To say otherwise would mean he doesn't know everything. We are supposed to be god's children and they say he loves us but if we don't do as he says, he will send us to a place called hell where we will suffer and burn forever. This would mean that god is a sadistic, perverted being. No parent could say they loved their children and then punish them like that.
Reply
-
-
loading ...
TGrass3001
NemoShiZniT
quillyregnold
miklkit
sotiris-k
Coatl
juvel
Will1313
lvrofwolves
canadianrancher57
dunkirk
CRYMTYPHON
Dicax_Maximus
memestryker
TheRealizer
MereMortal
bluetexasvalley
Eagle_Eye
DropkickaLib
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.