An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

I had an interesting thought. All the dinosaur bones, & fossils are just rocks that formed frame like structures that look like a living creature. But in fact are just bones that evolved without the tissue and organs.

Has science ruled this out, and if so what was the experiment that proved all dinosaur bones actually were apart of something that lived?

Yes, they have. Long ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

She isn't.

Also arthritis does not affect bones in that manner.

That is a typical statement of a denier.

 

[EternalDragon]

gradyll, the theory of evolution predicts that our close relatives would look more like us than our more distant ones. So does a human look more like a chimp than a dog? Yes, more like a dog than a lizard? Yes. More like a lizard than like a fish? Yes. More like a fish than a squid? Again yes. We could go all the way back the nested hierarchy.

Yep, as I suspected. The evolution theory can be summed up in one word: Similarities. Or maybe more than one word: Based solely on similarities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, as I suspected. The evolution theory can be summed up in one word: Similarities. Or maybe more than one word: Based solely on similarities.

As I have said before, you do not understand the theory of evolution.

Why not take some time and try to learn the theory that you are trying to debunk.

In fact why don't you try to learn how science works?

Do you want to learn why your side has no evidence and we do?

 

[lasthero]

Yes.

And this is what a poor education gets you.

 

[nuttypiglet]

And he lost that debate more than FIFTY YEARS AGO!!:



Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

I see. So, let me do some math here. It was discovered in 1974. Debunk was more than 50 years ago. So that makes the year NOW at least 2024. Science really can get nothing right can it. I do believe I'm in the year 2013 right now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. So, let me do some math here. It was discovered in 1974. Debunk was more than 50 years ago. So that makes the year NOW at least 2024. Science really can get nothing right can it. I do believe I'm in the year 2013 right now?

Try again. Australopithecus was discovered more than 50 years ago. Lucy, one of the best specimens was found in 1974.

I take it that you forgot to read the link.

ETA: Your guys claim did come after Lucy's find. No one of any note took him seriously.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

your question is on a contradicting basis, you assume that this knowledge is available. Remember this is ID not BC (biblical creationism).

Neither Biblical Creationism nor Intelligent Design (which are little different) seem to have an answer for this question. I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on a answer.

 

[createdtoworship]

Neither Biblical Creationism nor Intelligent Design (which are little different) seem to have an answer for this question. I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on a answer.

and they wouldn't, and they wouldn't.

it's a question we will never know.

 

[createdtoworship]

Third possibility: Jesus was a man who never rose from the grave.

Just another of the 400 plus self contradictions in the Bible that not even the experts can agree about.

here let me give you the whole section this time, with my software:

"

MATTHEW 12:40 (cf. John 19:14)—If Jesus was crucified on Friday, how could He have been in the grave three days and nights?


PROBLEM: Christ rose on Sunday (Matt. 28:1), but He stated that He would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If Christ was crucified on Friday, how could He have been three days and three nights in the earth and rise on Sunday only two days later?”


SOLUTION 1: Some scholars believe Jesus was in the grave for three full days and nights (72 hours), being crucified on Wednesday. They offer the following in support of this contention.
First, they insist that this is the literal meaning of the phrase “three days and nights.” Second, they point out that, on the view that Jesus was crucified on Friday, there is no explanation for what He did on Wednesday. All other days are accounted for. Third, they argue that the passover was not a fixed day (Friday), but floated.


SOLUTION 2: Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday. They take the phrase “three days and nights” to be a Hebrew figure of speech referring to any part of three days and nights. They offer the following in support of their position.
First, the phrase “day and night” does not necessarily mean a complete 24 hour period. The psalmist’s reference to meditating “day and night” on God’s Word does not mean one has to read the Bible all day and all night (Ps. 1:2).
Second, it is clear from the use of the phrase “three days and three nights” in the Book of Esther that it does not mean 72 hours. For, although they fasted three days and nights (4:16) between the time they started and the time she appeared before the king, the passage states that Esther appeared before the king “on the third day” (5:1). If they began on Friday, then the third day would be Sunday. Hence, “three days and nights” must mean any part of three days and nights.
Third, Jesus used the phrase “on the third day” to describe the time of His resurrection after His crucifixion (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; cf. 26:61). But, “on the third day” cannot mean “after three days” which 72 hours demands. On the other hand, the phrase “on the third day” or “three days and nights” can be understood to mean within three days and nights.
Fourth, this view fits best with the chronological order of events as given by Mark (cf. 14:1), as well as the fact that Jesus died on Passover day (Friday) to fulfill the conditions of being our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7; cf. Lev. 23:5–15)."

there is a graph here but I can't upload it.


Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (343). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

 

[createdtoworship]

Third possibility: Jesus was a man who never rose from the grave.

Just another of the 400 plus self contradictions in the Bible that not even the experts can agree about.

that one is tackled got any more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

that one is tackled got any more?

Actually it hasn't been.

The most likely answer to me is that the resurrection is just a myth.

I really don't care what the various apologists have to say. The role of apologists is to say "sorry" for the various errors of the Bible.

So let's get back to evolution.

Why do you have a problem with it? Is it because it debunks the various Genesis myths? Even without evolution we know those aren't true.

If you think back at one time scientists were attacked for saying that the Earth moved.

Luckily Christianity was not well organized by the time we realized that the Earth was round.

I will try to answer any evolution questions that you have.

 

[AV1611VET]

and they wouldn't, and they wouldn't.

it's a question we will never know.

I just can't see creationism having answers to evolutionists' questions ... other than "God did it" -- or some equivalent.

 

[mzungu]

I go with the term "missing," because it isn't there.

As to why it isn't there, as I said, it could be because it hasn't been found yet; or because it never existed in the first place.

Kinda like my Apple Challenge.

Evidence is missing, but in my opinion, it is missing because none was generated in the first place.

Every one you find would generate two more missing links, albeit the sum total of the two gaps would be less (by one) than the single gap before the find.

If I sked you for a photo of everyday of your life since your inception and you came up with photos of the day you were born and a scatter of photos of you at various ages; would I be correct to claim that you and the photos of you as a babe are not connected because of some missing photos?

Creationists ALWAYS denounce science when they know nothing about it. Imagine if I came to your church and preached about the Bible without ever having read it nor bothered to hear about it from a preacher etc? The congregation would be up in arms!

 

[AV1611VET]

If I sked you for a photo of everyday of your life since your inception and you came up with photos of the day you were born and a scatter of photos of you at various ages; would I be correct to claim that you and the photos of you as a babe are not connected because of some missing photos?

No, but keep in mind that some believe, as do I, that parts of evolution are missing ... not because "photos weren't taken," but because they were never there in the first place, and you couldn't take a photo if you wanted to.

That's the difference.

Imagine I saying you'll never see a photograph of me when I was 17, because I never existed as a 17-year-old.

That's just άλαλος.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Actually it hasn't been.

The most likely answer to me is that the resurrection is just a myth.

I really don't care what the various apologists have to say. The role of apologists is to say "sorry" for the various errors of the Bible.

So let's get back to evolution.

Why do you have a problem with it? Is it because it debunks the various Genesis myths? Even without evolution we know those aren't true.

If you think back at one time scientists were attacked for saying that the Earth moved.

Luckily Christianity was not well organized by the time we realized that the Earth was round.

I will try to answer any evolution questions that you have.

A sphere you mean.

 

[lasthero]

A sphere you mean.

Oblate spheroid, actually.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually it hasn't been.

The most likely answer to me is that the resurrection is just a myth.

I really don't care what the various apologists have to say. The role of apologists is to say "sorry" for the various errors of the Bible.

So let's get back to evolution.

Why do you have a problem with it? Is it because it debunks the various Genesis myths? Even without evolution we know those aren't true.

If you think back at one time scientists were attacked for saying that the Earth moved.

Luckily Christianity was not well organized by the time we realized that the Earth was round.

.

why are you in attack mode? why not just have a civil conversation?

I mean why on earth would I have a problem with evolution becasue it debunks genesis myths? That comment doesn't even make sense.

I will try to answer any evolution questions that you have

ok how did the double helix evolve? Someone is asking how a designer designed the universe, and thats fine.....but how did this stuff evolve, after all you have all of the scientists behind you. Right?


Take your time.

 

[createdtoworship]

If I sked you for a photo of everyday of your life since your inception and you came up with photos of the day you were born and a scatter of photos of you at various ages; would I be correct to claim that you and the photos of you as a babe are not connected because of some missing photos?

Creationists ALWAYS denounce science when they know nothing about it. Imagine if I came to your church and preached about the Bible without ever having read it nor bothered to hear about it from a preacher etc? The congregation would be up in arms!

actually if the photos are missing, your evidence is missing. It's about evidence. The controversy over evolution is because scientists using the same evidence are coming up with a differing conclusions.

 

[createdtoworship]

I just can't see creationism having answers to evolutionists' questions ... other than "God did it" -- or some equivalent.

yeah, true.