Evolutionism is not science but fool hypothesis

[Jet Black]

Furthermore, it has been shown that the fossil record is not directly in order (the bones are not directly chronological from newest to older), that the dating systems are rather faulty (ever hear of the living turtle they dated to be billions of years old?).

I am going to hazard a guess, and say that you meant thousands and not billions, and that it was dated using carbon dating.
Animals, plants and so on that get their carbon source from non-atmospheric carbon cannot be dated using carbon dating techniques.

Again, this is not to say that I can disprove this theory, but it is to say that it is just that: A THEORY, that DOES take as much faith as creation.

I suggest you learn the scientific meaning of the word theory. you will make yourself look more intelligent when posting on a science forum.

 

[BaNaNasRuS]

There is evidence/proof that is argued. You said it yourself what that proof is that is argued: the Bible.

In the fact of if god exist or not and saying that there’s proof that he does in the bible is not accurate as I stated the bible could be real or not we don’t know, for all we know god could just be a main character in the bible, who knows? No one. Exactly.

That does not follow. What science does best is show ideas to be wrong. Science has shown the aether to be wrong, the earth centered solar system to be wrong, special creation to be wrong, etc. In all cases we have proof that those things are wrong.

Yes it does follow in the case if god exists or not. Because we will never know (more on this will follow). Science wise yes, religion no. Of course the earth isn’t the center of the universe, we proofed it. Does god exist? We don’t know, it can’t be proven.

What's more, theists over the millenia have demonstrated, to their satisfaction, that various versions of god are wrong: Zeus, Marduk, Osiris, Mithra, Odin all come immediately to mind. There are others. So it is not impossible to show things are wrong either by science or theology. What you are stuck with is that the versions of god believed today -- Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu -- have not been shown to be wrong.

Really? Where is it said, or better put proven that Zeus and all those other “gods” don’t exist??? It’s can’t be proven, Greek mythology is to us, (this time in the world) fiction. But back then it was there religion, they believed as you all do in god. It can’t be proven it was written or said orally as like the bible, it could all be real or it could all be made up.

And another note, I never said it’s “not impossible” to show things wrong by science, it’s obvious that everything that is fact can be proven by science, since the existence of god cannot be proven, its just something people believe in.

That's the problem. The Bible is a compilation of times when God did show himself. The Quran is a book where Allah did speak directly to Mohammed. So, we have cases where people have claimed that God has shown himself, but you don't accept those acounts as valid.

Yeah I know the bible and the Quran state that they did show themselves to other people and et cetera. But like I said, we don’t know if the bible is fiction or nonfiction.



As for the people who claim god spoke to them, fun how people can speak to god, but when god speaks to them, they get thrown in the loony bin in most case, and how do you know they aren’t just making it up to get attention or that they are really crazy? Yes it is entirely possible that god did talk to them, but they can’t prove it. There is no evidence showing he exist; the bible doesn’t count as evidence because that can’t be proven either.

What this boils down to is: since you don't trust others, the only way you will ever know God exists is if He reveals himself to you. This isn't an "us" and "we" here, it's about you. Just you. You need to realize that your views are personal and not universal. That said, it's OK to have your doubts and if you choose not to accept the accounts in the Bible as accurate, that's fine. The only point I want to make is that you realize you are speaking only for you and not some universal standard.

I trust others, completely; I trust them till I figure it out for my self. And I said in my last post, that I don’t believe in god, there’s no proof that he exist, only that he doesn’t. But I do and know others believe in god, and that’s fine (as long as they don’t promote it or anything to others to try and change them).



And it is an “us” “we,” not “you, or me.” Everyone knows what “fact,” “evolution,” “belief,” “god” means and other words too… hey lets play a game…



Directions: place the letter next to the word next to another the letter next to a different word. Example:

• A. Foot
• B. Glove
• C. Hand
• D. Shoe

Answers:
A and D go together…
B and C go together…

Now for the real game …

• A. Evolution
• B. God
• C. Fact
• D. Belief

These were not views, they were facts, and if you didn’t catch the keyword in the whole post, it was “if.” Hypothetically speaking… was most of what I was saying. In short, I was saying, god could exist or he couldn’t, we will never know, and that the bible could be fiction or nonfiction, we will never know…



Universal standards yes, it is fact that they can never be proven without hard rock solid evidence. Witch in the world today, there is none. My personal belief is there is no god at all. and that all who do have been brain-washed when you were younger by your parents when they made you go to church every Sunday. That’s my personal belief that I keep separate from everything else, everything I have said prior was true, and “if” and known.



Even shorter… god may or may not, the bible may or may not, evolution is…



……. Answers to above game are… A and C go together, and B and D go together…



… a more in-depth definition of “belief” is: something some one believes to be fact, but isn’t a fact in the… what would you call it… “real” world… or that some one believes it to be fact when it is really not.

 

[Proud Flesh]

First of all, I would like to say again that I did not call myself directly a creationist. It would be nice (as someone sitting in the middle of this issue) if both sides quit name calling and simply opened up dialogue. What I am has nothing to do with what I said.

Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?

I am afraid I misspoke. I did not mean that we should get rid of forensic evidence. What I meant to get across is that the forensic evidence is often twisted to fit into a Macro-evolutionary proof system. I don't think the evidence is very strong. Have you ever actually seen some of the "cavemen", "neanderthal" skeletons we have? They're almost totally plaster of paris (sp.?). Other "pre human" civilizations are nothing more than early, but still HUMAN places... with religions, burial grounds, music, etc.

I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.

I think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals. Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.

On faulty dating, you likely are correct about that. I am not as informed as you on that subject.

Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.

Besides, look deep into a human body. The complexities are endless. People who are die-hard for evolution talk as if the first cell could have arranged as easily as putting a log-cabin together. It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic. Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?

Look, whatever. All I'm trying to get evolutionists to admist is that the record is not as sure fire as they claim, or even Darwin claimed. Read.

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species

Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one. Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of spacial creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?!? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition".
-E.J.H. Corner, botanist of Cambridge University.

This is my favorite, though.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. The is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose form non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution".
-Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology.

Food for thought.

 

[Aggie]

I'll leave most of this to the rest of the people here, but I'd like to deal with this claim:

Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES.

First of all, dinosaurs aren't lizards; they're a separate clade within reptilia. I defined this group further here. They also aren't species--a species is something like Tyrannosaurus rex that exists WITHIN dinosauria along with all other species of dinosaur.

Since you're using the word "species" incorrectly, I'm not sure what it is you're claiming about this. A species isn't something that's fixed--if you take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html you'll see that there are plenty of observed examples of new species evolving from PRE-EXISTING species. As far as dinosaurs are concerned, the boundary between species is not easy to tell from fossils, either. Are there really five species of Triceratops, or just two? Should Archaeopteryx lithographica and Archaeopteryx bavarica really be two separate species? Gregory paul has suggested that the gracile and robust versions of Deinonychus antirrhopus might deserve to be considered two different species, but they may have just been two different "races".

And obviously there's no way to see whether or not these groups of animals can mate and produce fertile offspring. And even if they can, that STILL would not determine for sure whether or not they should be separate species. Horses and donkeys can occasionally produce fertile offspring (hinnies) but not always. Dogs and wolves interbreed all the time. Species is a handy way of dividing up living things, but like most Linnaean divisions it is difficult to define.

OK, so maybe you're referring to something other than species. Reptilia and Aves are different classes, but for something like this the Linnaean system is even more misleading. You can see the problem when comparing Archaeopteryx to Microraptor. The former is classified as a bird and the latter as a reptile, but they're no more different from one another than a leopard is from an ocelot.

If you want to know more about the division between birds and dinosaurs, I would love to discuss this some more with you. And I'm sure God Fearing Atheist would also.

 

[The Bellman]

Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?

Yes, "macro" evolution has been observed. Repeatedly, in the wild and in the laboratory. Google "speciation" to get more reading on the subject than you can handle.

I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.

No, the amount of time given for humans to have evolved is NOT much too short a span. Evolution of the eye has been dealt with countless times on this board. It has evolved several times in different species.

I think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals. Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.

Umm...so what?

Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.

So the probability of you being born is 1 - certainty.

People who are die-hard for evolution talk as if the first cell could have arranged as easily as putting a log-cabin together.

No, they don't.

It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic.

No, it's not.

Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?

Do what? Produce life from non-life? Because as yet, they don't know how it happened. There are a number of promising lines of investigation, but as of right now, we don't know how it happened, so we can't repeat it.

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species

Sorry, but out-of-context quote mining won't win you much sympathy on these boards. Particularly when you don't understand the quote, as you didn't.

Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one. Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??

No, there shouldn't be thousands upon thousands of them, because, as Darwin says, the fossil record is very sparse. Fossilisation is a rare event.

And we have found many of them.

There is no "recessive gene for apes".

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of spacial creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?!? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition".
-E.J.H. Corner, botanist of Cambridge University.

This is my favorite, though.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. The is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose form non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution".
-Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology.

Once again, out-of-context quote mining won't win you any support here. Particularly when those quotes are simply false and misleading, as is the one above from Dr. Wald.

 

[BaNaNasRuS]

you go bellman lol

 

[Proud Flesh]

Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right... and I certainly do understand the quotes and the information. As for the differentiation between species and types of animals, I admited and do admit that I don't know the proper terms. But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals. As for everyone else about lizards, birds, etc. thank you for the readings.

 

[Arikay]

1) Macro evolution.
Speciation, Is macro evolution.
Speciation is the last step, if you claim that one group of animals (define how the animals are grouped) can't change into another "group" then you need to provide us with some sort of mechanism that prevents this.
So far, no mechanism has been found.
Once a species speciates, there is nothing stoping it from eventually becoming very different from its original species.

2) Chance.
Yep, you got it. The chance that you would be born is very very small, yet you were born. Same goes for most probabilty statistics for evolution. The chance that humans would evolve through chance is very very small, yet it happend.
Still curious to see your source for the probability, as again, there have been probability calculations done that are completly false.

3) Fossilization
Yes, fossilization is a rare thing. Most of the fossils of young bones (only a few generations old) are often petrifacation and are not the same as say dinosaur fossils. Fast fossilization is possible, but in general fossilization is a rare thing.

 

[Jet Black]

Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right... and I certainly do understand the quotes and the information.

that's just the thing. the conditions aren't usually right for fossilization. For example, where are all the fossils of the passenger pigeon?

As for the differentiation between species and types of animals, I admited and do admit that I don't know the proper terms. But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals.

of course they do, they diverge into new species. you don't get dogs becoming cats or any of that silliness, you get mesonyx diverging into canid and felid branches, you get branches of reptiles diverging into numerous species of therapsids, you get therapsids diverging into mammalian, monotreme and marsupial branches, and so on.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

I hope you will all forgive me. It's going to take some time to absorb this exhange:

Jimmy - Can you explain why Cynognathus has both a reptilian jaw joint and a mammalian jaw joint? Thanks

Proud Flesh - I think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals.


and then a few posts later...

Proud Flesh - But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals

 

[Jet Black]

Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?

the new species that are discovered are just newly discovered species, however we have observed speciation, that is emergence of a new distinct species from older ones. As for "why" the weed needed to change, this is not how evolution works - and so there is no answer to your question since it is meaningless. The weed just changed. Natural selection will decide whether that change was for the better or not.

I am afraid I misspoke. I did not mean that we should get rid of forensic evidence. What I meant to get across is that the forensic evidence is often twisted to fit into a Macro-evolutionary proof system. I don't think the evidence is very strong. Have you ever actually seen some of the "cavemen", "neanderthal" skeletons we have? They're almost totally plaster of paris (sp.?). Other "pre human" civilizations are nothing more than early, but still HUMAN places... with religions, burial grounds, music, etc.

this is where we can use clever things like bilateral symmetry to piece things together. If something is there on the left, it is there on the right too, so unless you have been unfortunate enough to find yourself with a neanderthal hunchback of notre dame, the reconstruction should be accurate. A good understanding of science can deal with the rest.

I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.

not really. There are a couple of things here, first of all, the evolution of something like the eye is remarkably simple, since small changes repeatedly make a significant difference, and there would have been massive selective pressure on something like eyes, since they are just such a useful tool to have in the right conditions. The next thing is the evolution of evolvability - another factor which itself allows a relatively rapid pace of evolution where nescessary. Then you need to think about the timespan. It is easy to say a billion, but if you counted to a bilion, with one number per second, non stop - no sleeping, eating or anything, it would still take you 31 years.

I think micro evolution explains "reptilian" parts within "mammalian" animals. Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.

microevolution explains what sorry? the existance of therapsids with a double jaw joint and so on? absolutely, I agree with you 100%, lots and lots of microevolution over millions of years

Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.

just as are the statistical analyses of the existance of life. As you can see, statistics cannot be used to defend a position such as "life cannot get here through naturalistic processes" since by the same argument, neither could you.

Besides, look deep into a human body. The complexities are endless. People who are die-hard for evolution talk as if the first cell could have arranged as easily as putting a log-cabin together. It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic. Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?

no, scientists do not talk as if the first cell was so easy, note here that there was a long process consisting of many steps that led to the formation of the earliest cells - or what we would recognise as life.

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species

that was 150 years ago, things have changed alot since then.

Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one. Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??

because that is not how it works. Clearly you do not understand the "laws of genetics" if you think such a thing happens; Do you ever see chinese people spontaneously giving birth to african babies? caucasians popping native american children? chihuauas giving birth to wolves?

 

[The Bellman]

Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right... and I certainly do understand the quotes and the information. As for the differentiation between species and types of animals, I admited and do admit that I don't know the proper terms. But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals. As for everyone else about lizards, birds, etc. thank you for the readings.

Sorry, but fossilzation is extremely rare.

And no, I doubt you understand the quotes you posted.

 

[Aggie]

But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals.

Be specific about what you mean by this. I've already given several examples of one species forming from another, which could be described as "one animal changing into another". You seem to understand that new species can form, so that must not be the barrier beyond which animals can't evolve. What IS the barrier?

It can't be the creation of new genetic information, because that has been observed too: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2667547#post2667547

Let's take a fairly primitive dinosaur like Coelophysis. Can an animal like this evolve into something like Ornitholestes?
Can an animal like Ornitholestes evolve into one like Sinosauropteryx?
Can something like Sinosauropteryx evolve into something like Caudipteryx?
Can something like Caudipteryx evolve into something like Microraptor?
Can something like Microraptor evolve into something like Archaeopteryx?
Can something like Archaeopteryx evolve into something like Confuciusornis?
And can modern birds evolve from something like Confuciusornis?

You could consider each of the steps I've mentioned to be micro evolution. But when you add a whole lot of steps of micro evolution together, you get macro evolution. That's all macro evolution EVER is--a buch of micro evolution steps added together.

You seem to accept that micro evolution happens. What prevents a whole lot of micro evolution from adding up into macro evolution?

 

[lucaspa]

I do know that we were made in God's image, and that's what matters. Not HOW we are here, but WHY we are here.

Very good! Yes, the discussion is about how God created, not whether God created. You want to argue the existence of God, go to the Apologetics Forum.

Now, think about it, what does it mean when it says "in God's image"? Does it mean God's physical image? Does it mean God's spiritual image? Or does the phrase mean something completely different than how we view it now?

First of all, evolution most certainly does take belief and faith, because it has NOT been observed, at least not MACRO evolution. I would think you evolutionists would know that.

1. See the thread "Observed Speciation" That's observed macroevolution.
2. In most of science, we don't directly observe. For instance, no one has yet seen a quark. What we have seen are effects quarks exert that we can observe. That's the same with evolution. Have you read Origin of the Species? I strongly suggest you do so before you continue to argue here. What Darwin is arguing is that living species show the effects of evolution. IOW, living plants and animals could not look the way they do unless they have evolved -- macroevolution.

[/quote] Furthermore, it has been shown that the fossil record is not directly in order (the bones are not directly chronological from newest to older), that the dating systems are rather faulty (ever hear of the living turtle they dated to be billions of years old?). Again, this is not to say that I can disprove this theory, but it is to say that it is just that: A THEORY, that DOES take as much faith as creation.[/quote]1. Evolution is not atheism.
2. Creationism is not creation.
3. Evolution is just as much creation as creationism, see the second quote in my signature.

Finally, you will find lots of creationist sites that say these things. However, the claim "it has been shown that" is wrong. We can discuss the details as much as you wish, that's why we are here.

It is my thought that if evolution is true, the odds of it happening without intelligent design is statistically impossible. Either we were directly created in some way, or God simply used evolution to bring humans about.

There is no way to calculate the odds you mention. Remember, natural selection is a process to get design. So, with natural selection to do the designing, there is no way to say that intelligence is required.

By the way, the story in Genesis does go along with the scientific story of how the earth came to be rather well, as allegory; remarkably so sometimes. "Let there be Light"... sounds much like the Big Bang, to me...

But then the rest of it falls apart. After all, the earth wasn't here before the sun, was it? Nor was the earth around before the stars. As a sequence of events, Genesis 1 is very bad, but then, it wasn't intended as a sequence of events for modern science. To see the sequence of events depicted in Genesis 1, you need to look at the Enuma Elish. Then it all becomes clear. IMHO

 

[lucaspa]

First of all, I would like to say again that I did not call myself directly a creationist.

Yes you did when you said Genesis 1 matched science. You also said it when you said evolution required intelligent design. Sorry, but your own words labeled you as a creationist. Perhaps an Old Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Design creationist, but still a creationist.

Macro evolution has not been observed. A new species popping up of a weed... what caused it to change? Why did it need to change? New species are discovered all the time in the Amazon... does this mean that they are newly formed, or just new to our own classification system?

Proud, I and others have referenced you to the thread "Observed Speciation". Yes, speciation has been observed. Both in the lab and in the wild. Watched from where you had one species until you have a different one.

What caused the change? A change in environment that required new adaptations to survive in that environment. IOW, natural selection working on the population to change one population to a different one over the course of generations.

I am afraid I misspoke. I did not mean that we should get rid of forensic evidence. What I meant to get across is that the forensic evidence is often twisted to fit into a Macro-evolutionary proof system.

What we are saying is that forensic science also deals with events in the past that no one observed, but you have no trouble accepting that we can figure out what happened. IOW, your depiction of the limits of science is wrong. As long as an event leaves evidence that is in the present, we can figure out what happened even if we weren't there. This is because the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. To say anything else denies cause and effect.

I don't think the evidence is very strong. Have you ever actually seen some of the "cavemen", "neanderthal" skeletons we have? They're almost totally plaster of paris (sp.?). Other "pre human" civilizations are nothing more than early, but still HUMAN places... with religions, burial grounds, music, etc.

That you don't think the evidence is strong is based on the fact that you don't know much of the evidence. Yes, I've seen many of the skeletons. I've visited both the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History. Both have just the actual bones on display of several examples of hominin fossils. Cleveland has Turkana Boy and AMNH has Lucy, for example. Also, remember that humans are symmetrical, so if you have the left upper arm bone, you know what the right upper arm bone looks like: it is the mirror image. I've posted a list of transitional individuals in our ancestry several times, would you like me to do so again here?

I do not agree that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It may be millions or billions. But even with that amount of time, in order for the evolutionary theory to be valid, it was either in rapid mode or directed. The amount of time given for humans to have evolved is much too short a span for people to be as sophisticated as we are now, with the complexities of the eye ball, the depths of the human brain.

There is more than enough time. Recent experiments looking at natural selection show it can operate at speeds up to 10,000 times that seen in the fossil record. The question is not whether there was enough time, but rather why evolution was so much slower than it can happen.

As to the human eye (which is the vertebrate eye and has been around as such for 400 million years),
13. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. The authors, being as pessimistic as possible, say it will take 364,000 generations. Even using the 20 years of a typical human generation and not the less than 1 year of most mammal generations, this works out to only 728,0000 years. Lucy is 2.4 million years old. More than enough time.

Birds and lizards (esp. dinosaurs) have similar bone and skeletal structures. They are still distinct SPECIES. A bird is not a reptile. A man is not an ape. Donkeys are not horses.

What you described is not a species, but rather a classification of groups of species. Reptiles and birds are Classes. Now, ape is an Family, and in fact humans are members of that family. So, yes, under the classification, humasn are apes. Donkeys and horses are genera, the next step up from species. There are at least 3 species of horses and 2 of donkeys.

But one species does change into another. If you continue that for each species on either side of the split, eventually you will have different genera, families, orders, and classes. See the diagram here: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html

Statistics... don't give me that philisophical junk. I'm talking about the odds of something happening that we are not sure of if it happened or not. The statisical probability of my being born is irrelevant because I was born. Case closed.

Let's open it again. If you use that argument, then the odds of anything that exists is irrelevant. Creationists use statistics to show that it is impossible to exist by chance. But, as you are beginning to see, the statistics used to say that are flawed. If we calculate the odds of you existing by chance -- using the same calculations used by creationists -- then you were specially created and not born from your parents.

Besides, look deep into a human body. The complexities are endless.

That's fine. Natural selection can generate complexities.

It is AMAZINGLY, almost unfathomably complex, and to think this cell came together at all, or if it did, then by accident, is anti-logic. Why can't scientists do this when performing a fair, accurate test in a lab?

1. But it didn't come by accident! Natural selection is not chance!
2. Because natural selection takes far more time than a scientist's lifetime. But they have made life in the lab. http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Also, you are ignoring all the bad designs in humans. Intervertebral discs, for instance. They are supposed to be designed for us to walk upright, but the design is so bad that they almost always fail before we die. That's why you have so many people in back pain. Or look at arthritis. Osteoarthritis comes just by using your legs for what they are designed to do: walk, run, move. Why would God do such a poor job of designing that the cartilage wears out? It is the bad designs that got special creation dropped by Christians.

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." -Darwin, My Life and Letters

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional (missing) links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative". -Darwin, The Origin of Species


Well said, Darwin. Indeed, there should be thousands upon thousands of them... yet we cannot find one.

No, we've found thousands now. http://www.christianforums.com/t43227 In fact, finding Archeopteryx in 1865 was strong support for the theory. BTW, you noticed that Darwin did give a reason for the failure to find intermediates. Well, it's 145 years since Origin came out. Both observed speciation and abundant intermediate fossils are now know. In science, Proud, you always have to check to make sure new data hasn't shown old statements to be wrong.

Odd. In fact, shouldn't a woman give birth to an ape somewhere soon, due to the laws of genetics? The recessive gene for apes is somewhere in our gene pool... how come that has never happened??

The alleles for apes are long gone from the population. Recessive alleles (alleles are different variants of genes) are not holdovers from an evolutionary past. They are simply alleles that aren't expressed if there is a dominant allele.

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of spacial creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?!? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition".
-E.J.H. Corner, botanist of Cambridge University.

This is my favorite, though.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. The is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose form non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution".
-Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology. [/QUOTE]Creationist websites are known for misquoting. Do you have a source for these?

The second refers to abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution only applies after life has arisen. If life arose by a supernatural creative act of God, evolution still works. This is where you go back to thinking evolution is atheism.

I have a thread called "Abiogenesis". Please read it.

 

[lucaspa]

In the fact of if god exist or not and saying that there’s proof that he does in the bible is not accurate as I stated the bible could be real or not we don’t know, for all we know god could just be a main character in the bible, who knows? No one. Exactly.

You have two different claims here:
1. There is no evidence.
2. The Bible is not accurate and therefore isn't evidence.

So, do you see what you are doing? Yes, the Bible is evidence. If it weren't you wouldn't have to try to deny it.

Science wise yes, religion no

Sorry, but this doesn't hold. Science and religion study two different things. Saying that science is wise but religion isn't ignores that science can't study what religion does.

[quote. Of course the earth isn’t the center of the universe, we proofed it. Does god exist? We don’t know, it can’t be proven. [/quote]
What did we 'prove". We proved that the earth is not the center of the universe. IOW, we disproved the statement "the earth is the center of the universe." Now, what we have is the statement "God exists". Science cannot disprove it.

Science does not "prove" the way you say it does. The only certain statements in science are the negative ones. The earth is not flat. The aether does not exist. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. Each species was not specially created.

Really? Where is it said, or better put proven that Zeus and all those other “gods” don’t exist??? It’s can’t be proven, Greek mythology is to us, (this time in the world) fiction. But back then it was there religion, they believed as you all do in god.

But then theists decided it was wrong. That's the point. Theists disproved, to their satistfaction, that Zeus doesn't exist. From this you can conclude:
1. Theists are honest enough to disprove a deity if the evidence is against it.
2. You don't have any idea how theists did that. You need to find out.
3. Those same honest theists can't seem to disprove Yahweh.

It can’t be proven it was written or said orally as like the bible, it could all be real or it could all be made up.

You have to prove it was made up. That's what we are certain of. Now, theists managed to disprove that the oral traditions and witten accounts of Zeus were false and made up. So they can do so. You have to ask yourself, why haven't they done the same with the Bible?

And another note, I never said it’s “not impossible” to show things wrong by science, it’s obvious that everything that is fact can be proven by science, since the existence of god cannot be proven, its just something people believe in.

1. Facts are not "proven" by science. Facts are simply repeated observations. Occasionally they too can be wrong. For about 10 years all the repeated observations were that humans have 48 chromosomes. We actually have 46.
2. That God does not exist is also 'just something people believe in". Since the only certain things in science are what we have shown to be wrong, that "God exists" has not been shown to be wrong means that "God does not exist" is also a belief.

Yeah I know the bible and the Quran state that they did show themselves to other people and et cetera. But like I said, we don’t know if the bible is fiction or nonfiction.

you don't know. Or rather, you don't accept that they are accurate. Don't extrapolate your doubt to a universal condition.

As for the people who claim god spoke to them, fun how people can speak to god, but when god speaks to them, they get thrown in the loony bin in most case, and how do you know they aren’t just making it up to get attention or that they are really crazy?

1. Most people don't get thrown into asylums. Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism) and CS Lewis, as just two famous examples, were never considered insane. The people considered insane have other behaviors that label them insane. If you look around these boards, you will find dozens of sane people who say they have personal experience of God.
2. How do you know they are making it up? What reason do you have to doubt them except that they say they communicate with God. And you can't use that criteria without using circular logic.

Yes it is entirely possible that god did talk to them, but they can’t prove it. There is no evidence showing he exist; the bible doesn’t count as evidence because that can’t be proven either.

You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence is simply information backing a position. Proof is what you accept as overwhelming evidence such that you can't doubt the position. The existence of God has evidence. However, since you don't accept the evidence as valid, you don't have proof. For those who do accept the evidence as valid, they do have proof.

As I said, the only evidence you would consider as "proof" is your personal experience of God. But that is a biased requirement to qualify as evidence in the atheism/theism discussion.

I trust others, completely; I trust them till I figure it out for my self.

That is denied by the everything above. You don't trust people when they say they have experience of God. You just said "they can't prove it". But if you trust them, their word is proof.

And I said in my last post, that I don’t believe in god, there’s no proof that he exist, only that he doesn’t.

What is this proof that God does not exist? Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves God does not exist.

And it is an “us” “we,” not “you, or

me.” Everyone knows what “fact,” “evolution,” “belief,” “god” means and other words too… hey lets play a game.

It's not a game. You beleive God doesn't exist, but you don't have proof. You say the Bible is made up, but can't prove it. You say that people who have experience of God are either insane or making it up, but can't prove it.

A. Evolution

• B. God
• C. Fact
• D. Belief

Evolution is fact, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Remember, evolution isn't atheism. Disbelief in God is a belief also.

I was saying, god could exist or he couldn’t, we will never know, and that the bible could be fiction or nonfiction, we will never know…

And I'm saying that statement is wrong on a couple of points. That "we will never know" is a belief. How can you speak for all the future? You can't say that the data will always be absent. Right now, science doesn't know.

Universal standards yes, it is fact that they can never be proven without hard rock solid evidence.

What is "rock solid evidence" to you? This is the key to your position. And where you switch claims. Here you are admitting there is evidence, but that it isn't "rock hard solid". But that depends on what you require for rock hard solid, doesn't it? Since that requirement is only your judgement, your statement isn't universal.

My personal belief is there is no god at all. and that all who do have been brain-washed when you were younger by your parents when they made you go to church every Sunday.

Wait a minute. If it is your personal belief, then why do you call theists "brainwashed". After all, a belief can be wrong, can't it?

 

[lucaspa]

Fossilization is not rare... human skeletons from mere generations ago fossilize if the elements are right.

Notice that "if the elements are right". Of 1,000 dead human bodies, how many of those are going to have the elements right? Very few if any at all.
One of the elements is where they died. If they died up on a rocky mountain, they will never be fossilized.

But what I meant (and what you understood) was that animals do not change into other animals. As for everyone else about lizards, birds, etc. thank you for the readings.

But they do. See below for a picture showing transitionals of one snail turining into another. Click on it to enlarge.

 

[BaNaNasRuS]

Alright here children, lets learn the mean of some commonly used words shall we…



God - religion Supreme Being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god.



Evolution - biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits; the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material.



Belief - acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty.



Fact - something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened; truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.



Evidence - sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular accurate conclusion.



Proof - conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.



Definitions provided by, Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

You have two different claims here:
1. There is no evidence.
2. The Bible is not accurate and therefore isn't evidence.

So, do you see what you are doing? Yes, the Bible is evidence. If it weren't you wouldn't have to try to deny it.

There is no evidence… as of right now in time.



To be able to use something as evidence to prove something else, that evidence must be proven as well. Since we don’t know if the bible is accurate or not, it can not be used, some one may use as an argument, (like this one), but it is not considered factually accurate. Yes it does say that god and what not exist, but nothing that we know of proves its accuracy.



No, do you see what you’re doing, the bible isn’t accurate evidence, in some cases and some people views it could be evidence, but it does not fit the definition of the word evidence. And I’m not trying to deny it, I’m try to say it’s not a valid source, you the one stating it is, may I mind you with no proof what so ever…

Sorry, but this doesn't hold. Science and religion study two different things. Saying that science is wise but religion isn't ignores that science can't study what religion does.

No, you misinterpreted me… I meant “science wise” as in science point of view, or the science position, I didn’t say or mean that science was “wise” as in “intelligent…” You could have put it as like… “Science wise yes, religion wise no…” you had the wrong version of “wise” there… sorry for the confusion there.

What did we 'prove". We proved that the earth is not the center of the universe. IOW, we disproved the statement "the earth is the center of the universe." Now, what we have is the statement "God exists". Science cannot disprove it.

Science does not "prove" the way you say it does. The only certain statements in science are the negative ones. The earth is not flat. The aether does not exist. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. Each species was not specially created.

we proved both if you want to put it that way… we proved that the earth isn’t the center of the universe and we also proved that the sun was the center of the universe. Either way, you are saying the same way, whether or not it’s in a negative form or positive form.



EXACLY! Thank you… science cannot disprove god’s existence… ALSO, science cannot prove god’s existence.



If you haven’t gotten it by now, most likely you won’t ever… all I ever said, straight from the beginning was that we (humans, ALL of them) cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. Some for the bible, if it’s real or not…



… not once did I say god doesn’t exist. I said that he may or may not exist. And that we don’t know.



The earth is not flat = The earth is round.



The aether does not exist = well maybe if I knew what “aether meant…?



The earth is not less than 10,000 years old = The earth is more than 10,000 years old.



Each species was not specially created… what exactly do you mean by this statement…?

But then theists decided it was wrong. That's the point. Theists disproved, to their satistfaction, that Zeus doesn't exist. From this you can conclude:

1. Theists are honest enough to disprove a deity if the evidence is against it.
2. You don't have any idea how theists did that. You need to find out.
3. Those same honest theists can't seem to disprove Yahweh.

Theists, who believe in one god, of course would say that Zeus and others don’t exist because it contradicts with there god and bible. As Christianity became “more popular,” less and less people believed in, what is now called Greek mythology… just imagine in the future, some other religion becomes “more popular” and then people rule out Christianity as say “European mythology.” Remember this was only an example, in the future Christianity could overpower all other religions and be the only one left, who knows, no one, it’s the future anything's possible because it hasn’t happen yet.



I have never seen any evidence stating that Greek mythology is wrong… I don’t think there is any, we’ve already went through that unit about it, of course the said it wasn’t real, that’s the mythology part but the teachers never showed us where in fact that is was proven to be wrong, just that it is excepted as wrong in our society. But I could be wrong, if so, and there is some, what is it, and could you give us a valid source of where you got that info and possible what year it was published. Thank you.



Yahweh… why can’t you just use god???

You have to ask yourself, why haven't they done the same with the Bible?

Uhhh, because they believe in the bible………


End Part One

 

[BaNaNasRuS]

1. Facts are not "proven" by science. Facts are simply repeated observations. Occasionally they too can be wrong. For about 10 years all the repeated observations were that humans have 48 chromosomes. We actually have 46.

You’re right, facts are not proven by science… science proved something and then it became a fact.



Facts are simply repeated observations, that have later afterwards be proven.



For 10 years humans have repeatedly observed that humans have 48 chromosomes… that was because we couldn’t prove that we had any more or less, we went with 48 because apes have 48, and apes are the closes linked spices that humans evolved from… (oh I know I’m going to get a lovely response from that one, lol, you Christians are so funny)

We just assumed… but when we found out we only had 46 chromosomes, then it became a fact because we were able to prove it.

2. That God does not exist is also 'just something people believe in". Since the only certain things in science are what we have shown to be wrong, that "God exists" has not been shown to be wrong means that "God does not exist" is also a belief.

Exacly again, kind of… believing god exist is a religion, and believing he doesn’t exist is also a religion. Once again all I’ve been saying is that we cont prove if he does or doesn’t at this time.

you don't know. Or rather, you don't accept that they are accurate. Don't extrapolate your doubt to a universal condition.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]… you’re the one who said that the bible and what ever that other book thing is said that they showed them self to other people…. That’s why I said, “I know they state they show them selfs” so don’t be saying that “I don’t know” I was “trusting” you on it.



What doubt… it is an universal condition, we don’t know if the bible is fact or fiction. I never said I doubted it, you just assumed.

1. Most people don't get thrown into asylums. Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism) and CS Lewis, as just two famous examples, were never considered insane. The people considered insane have other behaviors that label them insane. If you look around these boards, you will find dozens of sane people who say they have personal experience of God.

yeah that was more of a joke, it’s kind of funny if u think about, most all who believe in god, pray, they talk to him or her, and yet if god talks to them, lol, your crazy, lol, at least I find it funny. Did Theo D what ever and CS claim god talked to them?



How do you know those dozens of people are sane have you meant any of them, point exactly. It could all me an act. *keyword “could…” for the most part, you have missed all my “keywords” in everything I state, and the key words are usually very little words.

2. How do you know they are making it up? What reason do you have to doubt them except that they say they communicate with God. And you can't use that criteria without using circular logic.

You asked me a question that I stated in what I posted as a form of a question. I never said they were making it u, I said how could you tell if they were or not, you most likely wouldn’t be able to.



And I think you just “proved” one of my points… “And you can't use that criteria without using circular logic.” I can’t use that criteria, just the fact that they say there were talked to by god to say they were making it because I don’t have “circular logic,” or PROOF.

You can’t prove that they were lying or telling the truth, just from what they said, and you can’t prove that the bible is fact or fiction from just what is written.

You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence is simply information backing a position. Proof is what you accept as overwhelming evidence such that you can't doubt the position. The existence of God has evidence. However, since you don't accept the evidence as valid, you don't have proof. For those who do accept the evidence as valid, they do have proof.

This I think is my favorite thing that you’ve said…



So, I’m confusing evidence and proof… really… evidence, for short is: sign or proof. Proof for short is: conclusive evidence…



Sound to me that they match well indeed. In fact they can’t be more bound together than the fibers of you clothes.



God cannot be proven, or in that case disprove… the bible, you claim is evidence but does not fit the definition of the word, to do so it would have to be proof, and to be proof it must be a fact or like stated a conclusive evidence. You may think that the bible is a valid source of evidence all you want, but it’s not, it’s not to standards of what the meaning of the words. If one day the bible is proven to be true, then indeed it can be used as evidence to the existence of god.

End Part Two

 

[BaNaNasRuS]

As I said, the only evidence you would consider as "proof" is your personal experience of God. But that is a biased requirement to qualify as evidence in the atheism/theism discussion.

I have not been bias at all, beside in last post when I stated my opinion on what I personally believed.



FACT: as of right now in time, god cannot be proven or disproven.

FACT: as of right now in time, the bible cannot be proven or disproven.

That is denied by the everything above. You don't trust people when they say they have experience of God. You just said "they can't prove it". But if you trust them, their word is proof.

If you said you’ve seen or spoken to god, ill believe you, but if you start preaching to other that we should all believe in god and what not, saying that it’s the one true religion, and everything else is wrong, and pressuring people to conform and et cetera, you see where I’m going with this…. The I have a problem, if you want to believe in god, go right a head, its none of my concern, but when you start promoting it… no, prove it.

What is this proof that God does not exist? Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves God does not exist.

Evolution. Although it’s still kind of skeptical at the moment, and they way it disproves god, is that god, supposedly created man and all creators yada yada… evolution says otherwise… we evolved from other things and that’s how we’ve come to be.

It's not a game. You beleive God doesn't exist, but you don't have proof. You say the Bible is made up, but can't prove it. You say that people who have experience of God are either insane or making it up, but can't prove it.

MISCONCEPTION! I never said god doesn’t exist, I never said the bible is mad up, I never people who claim they’ve been talked to by god are insane or made it up, I said nothing of the such.



I did say, however, god may or may not exist, I did say the bible may or may not be factual, I did say people who claim who have been talked to god could (keyword there) be making it up, insane, or telling the truth and that you couldn’t tell in that case.



I never said anything was anything, I said we couldn’t prove anything this point in time.

And I'm saying that statement is wrong on a couple of points. That "we will never know" is a belief. How can you speak for all the future? You can't say that the data will always be absent. Right now, science doesn't know.

Yes you are right in this case, the future isn’t written yet, anything's possible. I knew that even before writing it, I should have caught myself. But what I do think, this right here is my opinion; I don’t believe we will ever know, in our generation. I highly doubt that we will find out before we die, but it’s although it is entirely possible that we will know tomorrow, highly unlikely but possible.

What is "rock solid evidence" to you? This is the key to your position. And where you switch claims. Here you are admitting there is evidence, but that it isn't "rock hard solid". But that depends on what you require for rock hard solid, doesn't it? Since that requirement is only your judgement, your statement isn't universal

like I said, I all case the bible is evidence to the existence to god, but what I ment by “hard rock solid” was that evidence that is, well as we’ve learned now, is evidence, or something that is already proven, already fact. Context wise, the bible isn’t evidence, or if

you like it, conclusive evidence.

Wait a minute. If it is your personal belief, then why do you call theists "brainwashed". After all, a belief can be wrong, can't it?

You right there, a belief can never be wrong, and that’s a fact. What I mean by “brainwashed,” now remember this is my opinion. If your family is Christian or goes to church, you went when you were young, and when your young, when your told by you parents or you teachers even the people at church, you believe then, as you grow up you still believe them for the most part because its what you learn when you were young. Also the fact that you parents make you go, even if they didn’t force you to go, and you went willingly, they never stopped to ask what you want to do. My parents use to make me, but you can’t force me to do anything, I know better, I picked my own path, way more “evidence” is on the side of evolution, that it can’t be argued completely. And another big thing I see with the bible, is that it doesn’t have “by…” anyone, who wrote it??? I don’t know. When we’re kids, and young, were vulnerable. Also that in Christianity, the fact that you told that all other religions are wrong, is also another “brainwash” I think.



I have a question. Since I don’t know the bible very well, and have never heard anything on this topic I want to know…. Because I don’t know….. what does the bible say about dinosaurs?

End Part Three