Evolution What It Really Is

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(treeoflife;48433)
As for me, my conscience is clear.
As is mine.I would ask to get back to the subject of evolution, but I think you've made it clear that you are more interested in preaching than discussing.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(Lunar;48458)
As is mine.I would ask to get back to the subject of evolution, but I think you've made it clear that you are more interested in preaching than discussing.
I could say you're preaching as well. You just preach from a different set of beliefs. Call it what you will... preaching or discussing. The theory of evolution is fable. Evolution is not, but the theory that expands it to say we are evolved apes is. I'm not sure what else you want to discuss.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(treeoflife;48505)
I could say you're preaching as well. You just preach from a different set of beliefs. Call it what you will... preaching or discussing. The theory of evolution is fable. Evolution is not, but the theory that expands it to say we are evolved apes is. I'm not sure what else you want to discuss.
You could say why you think the observed instances of speciation don't count as evidence for the theory evolution, to start. That's what I was hoping to do; discuss the evidence at hand, not just accuse people back and forth of having faith beliefs.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(Lunar;48524)
You could say why you think the observed instances of speciation don't count as evidence for the theory evolution, to start. That's what I was hoping to do; discuss the evidence at hand, not just accuse people back and forth of having faith beliefs.
Edit: I have a feeling we're going to have a disagreement about terms... for example... the word species. But, we'll see.So, the various types of dogs, for example? Or, the difference between dogs and cats? The difference between dogs and cats has existed ever since God made dogs and made cats fully formed when He made them. ALL THE DIFFERENT dogs, however, have risen from one male and one female dog. Same, all the different types of cats have risen from a male and female cat. It would be silly, in my understanding, to say that every single type of dog or cat that we know of... got on the ark. The process of evolution is an absolute MUST to produce different types. The KINDS of animals (dog and cat) have always existed ever since God made them, and the TYPES of animals (bulldog, pitbull, boarder collie...), have risen over time, via "evolution."This process of evolution, which is observable and true... could then be used, wrongly, as an argument to make an inappropriate leap to the *theory of evolution*. We already have a theory, called the theory of creation. It's really a perfectly good theory, and evolution is not its enemy. We are exactly the way God made us... to adapt, to change over time. He made the seed, and the soil. God made the sperm and the egg. He made every single thing we study in nature and in science. He made DNA, and whatever happens therein doesn't surprise Him. Seeing the process evolution is no reason to throw out God's Word for a theory that says we've been evolving for millions of years.I believe in the theory of evolution *over some numerable thousands of years*, aka, the theory of creation. Evolution has been happening since God made man fully formed, in the beginning, just as His Word tells us.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(treeoflife)
So, the various types of dogs, for example? Or, the difference between dogs and cats? The difference between dogs and cats has existed ever since God made dogs and made cats fully formed when He made them. ALL THE DIFFERENT dogs, however, have risen from one male and one female dog. Same, all the different types of cats have risen from a male and female cat. It would be silly, in my understanding, to say that every single type of dog or cat that we know of... got on the ark. The process of evolution is an absolute MUST to produce different types. The KINDS of animals (dog and cat) have always existed ever since God made them, and the TYPES of animals (bulldog, pitbull, boarder collie...), have risen over time, via "evolution."
Most types of dogs you see today have arisen through selective breeding enforced by humans, not evolution.(treeoflife)
We already have a theory, called the theory of creation. It's really a perfectly good theory, and evolution is not its enemy. We are exactly the way God made us... to adapt, to change over time. He made the seed, and the soil. God made the sperm and the egg. He made every single thing we study in nature and in science. He made DNA, and whatever happens therein doesn't surprise Him. Seeing the process evolution is no reason to throw out God's Word for a theory that says we've been evolving for millions of years.
Yes, actually, there is.For one, it's not a scientific theory. It's based on unobservable, untestable claims and can't be falsified.Secondly, it can't account for the rampant imperfection we witness in nature. Why is the human spinal cord so much more suited for walking on four limbs than two? Why do we have body parts like the appendix, which appears to a poor version of an organ used to digest plant matter, but serves no function in humans except to occasionally poison us? Why do disabilities like Down's syndrome exist? Why is the infant mortality rate so incredibly high without the intervention of modern science? Why do fetuses grow a thin layer of fur over their bodies when they were five months old - in the womb and not wanting for warmth - and then lose it before birth? Why would the human genome contain 20,000 pseudogenes with no function whatsoever?These are just a few of the literally thousands of examples of sub-optimal design in nature. There's simply no practical reason that they would be designed this way.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
Most types of dogs you see today have arisen through selective breeding enforced by humans, not evolution.
Yes, evolution. I'll try to stop using the world evolution, and start using the phrase, "change over time." Because in that sense... the actual definition of the word (not what most people think of when someone says evolution), is correct. And, the different types of dogs have come by... change over time. Man enforced breeding yes (in the case of domesticated animals like dogs and cats), but simply, change over time. It is the same for all kinds of animals. Not only those that man's hand has been used to enforce the breeding process.
 

medicalmatt

New Member
Jul 22, 2007
93
0
0
37
(Lunar;48561)
Secondly, it can't account for the rampant imperfection we witness in nature. Why is the human spinal cord so much more suited for walking on four limbs than two?
I'm going to jump in here really quick
smile.gif
What do you mean about the spinal cord being "so much more suited" for quadripedal rather than bipedal walking?
Why do we have body parts like the appendix, which appears to a poor version of an organ used to digest plant matter, but serves no function in humans except to occasionally poison us?
Interesting, I've never heard the plant digestion theory for the vermiform appendix. Anyway, remember that years ago, doctors thought all sorts of organs, including the liver, were nonessential organs. Just because we don't know its function doesn't mean it doesn't have one.
Why do disabilities like Down's syndrome exist?
Harmful mutations from our once-perfect state as a result of sin.
Why is the infant mortality rate so incredibly high without the intervention of modern science?
I'm not sure what your point is in stating this. Are you attempting to point towards the validity of natural selection? No one is arguing that here.
Why do fetuses grow a thin layer of fur over their bodies when they were five months old - in the womb and not wanting for warmth - and then lose it before birth?
I don't know. Do you? I sure hope you're not trying to throw out the whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" idea that was suggested by Haeckel and then debunked by the scientific community in the 1800s (even though it's still taught as fact in high school and college textbooks today!)
Why would the human genome contain 20,000 pseudogenes with no function whatsoever?
How do you know they serve no function? The scientist can only say "we have not discovered a function for them yet." How do you know they didn't use to serve a function earlier in human history? How do you know they won't later serve a purpose?In short:a) Just because we don't see a purpose for something, doesn't mean it's not there.
cool.gif
Just as surely as we see walls, a roof, bathrooms and air conditioning ducts in most houses, from condos to apartments to mansions, so we will find similar organs in many organisms. If you have a basic blueprint that works, why deviate from it? There is beauty in similarity.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
medicalmatt: Your argument seems to be to assume that design is perfect, in spite of what appears to be obvious imperfections or defects, because we can never be sure that it doesn't serve some purpose we're unaware of. (Unless it's something really obvious like Down's syndrome, in which case it's punishment for sin.)It's effectively fideism. It's a complete renunciation of our ability to hold fast to any scientific principle purely by virtue of the fact that we might be wrong. Are you really willing to adopt this stance? Just how far are you willing to take this? Science has been wrong about virtually everything at some point in the past; is this going to cripple its ability to say anything meaningful about anything for the rest of time? And on top of that, you don't think the implicit assumption of perfect design in spite of apparent counterexamples is a faith belief?And as for the argument of there being "beauty in similarity:" There's nothing beautiful about it when it winds up doing us harm.The point that I was trying to make about the high infant mortality rate was that the birthing process is so dangerous to both the mother and the child, and so painful to the mother, that there's no way it could have been the product of intelligent design. I suppose you could hypothesize "incompetent design," maybe that could account for it, but intelligent it isn't.
 

adren@line

New Member
Feb 24, 2008
128
0
0
43
Oh yes, everything the scientific community has to offer. /sarcasm
Well it is important. Simply regurgitating something someone at your church told you or reading some biased "creation science" textbook that was written by fundamentalists isnt going to help either since nine times out of ten these people have no idea what they are talking about.Believe it or not, most scientists, unlike the creationists, do not have some agenda. They simply want what is true, or what is most likely to be true, as based on observations in nature, math, and logic. Many Christains want to distort and mold (and selectively disregard) science to fit their agenda and Biblical POV.There is a big difference between the two.
I've ventured far enough to realize that evolution is primarily based on assumptions. People only assume that man's predecessors were primates. They then look for anything that might support their hypothesis. Anything regardless if it is actually true or not.
Evolution is based on observed reality and established facts that have been logically tied together.That is not an assumption.By your same logic, the theory of gravity is an assumption. So is string theory and the 10 billion dollar "assumption" behind CERN that we will find the elusive Higgs Boson, all of which are the end-results of dudes who simply like to make crap up.yes?no?
I know for a fact that there is a God through personal encounters. I know that there is a divine being out there that created us. And that we were simply not product of pure dumb chance. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I do not have enough faith to believe in evolution.
Nothing is "chance" over the span of billions of years.
I know it's your personal choice that for believing in what you do. But I'm here to tell you that there is a better path. That God exists, and He has things planned for you. There is more to life than breading and surviving. It is up to you to take whatever faith in God you have and walk in it. Pretty soon your faith will increase, and the evidence of God will pile up. At this moment, I no longer think to myself if there really is a God.Will you take that challenge?
been there, done that.
 

adren@line

New Member
Feb 24, 2008
128
0
0
43
(treeoflife;48360)
If you, the Evolutionist, are here to see if we beleive things change over time, then look no more... we do. This may come as a surprise, but every Christian on this forum (I'm pretty sure) believes that things change over time. We are not oblvious to reason as some would like to believe. You will call this change over time evolution. So, if you want to debate about whether things change over time, there is no debate. I unashamidly submit to the glory of God in His creation, and that He created us to adapt and for life to press on through adversity. He is a wonderful, powerful, and very smart creator. He is the only Creator.What we will disagree on, no doubt, is that man came from monkey, and that monkey came from something else... and if you can't connect the dots to realize that you are eventually arriving at some premordial soup, or some rocks... and eventually many unexplainable phenomena where we came into existance... then you don't know your theory well enough. We will disagree on the origin. The Evolutionist would like to trace everything back, to a common origin, and bypass God's Word altogether. Is that not the ultimate goal? To find out how, and from what we evolved from? To debate with Christians why they are otherwise wrong about their God?If you don't trace the process of evolution (change over time) back to God, the you must trace it back to something else, aka, "Not God."An Evolutionist who does this would like everyone to to see change over time and make the radical leap, seeing that things are similar (the way God intended), are constructed from similar DNA (God knows what works and can certainly use what works, over and over), and that things adapt over time (the way God intended), that we should SWALLOW a theory that we evolved from monkeys, and thereon monkeys evolved from smaller, and smaller parts... over a LONG TIME (your unscene and unknowable God which must exist for your theory to be true). Understand this... we believe in evolution (change over time); or at least most of all of us do. We, however, don't believe that we have been changing over millions of years. You can spend your life wasting time trying to figure out what we "evolved" from, but we will consult God's written Word of the event in the Bible. This may be confusing for you, because you think the answer is elsewhere, but you are wrong. The answer is in His Word, period.It may also be frustrating to learn that you are practicing a relgious belief that BELIEVES in what it is you think you know. No doubt this notion rocks your world because you have allowed your minds to become diluted and decieved, just as it states in Romans 1. You will fight, no doubt, the notion that you express faith in your god of time, and of self, because many like to think they are above belief, and that it is impossible to concede ones mind to a belief... all the while, that is exactly what you are doing.Fact: God created the earth.Fact: God made man fully formed, and we did not evolve from monkeys.Fact: God will judge the world in righteousness, and those who practice unrighteousness... and fight against His Word.Fact: You will contest these facts but nevertheless, they will remain facts.
FACT: Sperm originates from the ribs (Islam)FACT: Man originated from the different parts of the cosmic man Parusha (Hinduism).FACT: Mans souls originate from a volcanic explosion initated by Lord Xenu (Scientology).According to you, these are also "facts".You see, the point is that when you start passing off religious beliefs as facts, you open the flood-gates of superstition and hence the line is blurred between "fact" and "belief" and the very usage of language becomes irrelevant and obsolete since one party (ie your party) likes to conveniently ignore and change the definitions of words to suite their arguments.If you cant respect the definitions of terms then the very usage of language becomes futile. Before you know it, well all start to redefine the english language to where cat means dog, up means left, and house means sit. If people like you start to use the term fact in-place of belief, then what do we call facts? What do we call beliefs? Did you already invent a new term? care to share?
 

BondiHarry

New Member
Apr 2, 2008
6
0
0
68
Evolution is based on observed reality and established facts that have been logically tied together.That is not an assumption.By your same logic, the theory of gravity is an assumption
Except that gravity is something that is readily observable and, in experiments, can be verified. Macro evolution has NEVER been observed and 'established facts that have been logically tied together' assumes a great deal from a species developing into another species (ie something that has never even been observed is indeed fact) to the problem that still remains with the origins of life. The likelihood of a simple cell spontaneously developing is on a par with a tornado going through a junk yard and creating a Boeing 747.
 

Jackie D

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
420
1
0
57
adren@line said:
Well it is important. Simply regurgitating something someone at your church told you or reading some biased "creation science" textbook that was written by fundamentalists isnt going to help either since nine times out of ten these people have no idea what they are talking about.
And I suppose YOU know what you are talking about? The above statement appears to be more of a personal opinion than it does FACT...that is what you are trying to convince us of isn't it? That what YOU know is fact....
Believe it or not, most scientists, unlike the creationists, do not have some agenda. They simply want what is true, or what is most likely to be true, as based on observations in nature, math, and logic. Many Christains want to distort and mold (and selectively disregard) science to fit their agenda and Biblical POV.
Many Christians (i.e. my party) could simply care less that science attempts on many levels to disprove or discredit a strong belief there is God. and again
You see, the point is that when you start passing off religious beliefs as facts, you open the flood-gates of superstition and hence the line is blurred between "fact" and "belief" and the very usage of language becomes irrelevant and obsolete since one party (ie your party) likes to conveniently ignore and change the definitions of words to suite their arguments.
seems that you are pointing a finger at Christians, when in fact you do the very thing you dislike about us...you keep your mind closed to our beliefs, you ridicule us by making such statements as "your party" and accuse us of distorting and molding and selectively disregarding, yet you yourself "distort and mold [and selectively disregard]" God 'to fit an agenda' and scientific 'POV'.Have a blessed day adren@line
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(adren@line;49066)
FACT: Sperm originates from the ribs (Islam)FACT: Man originated from the different parts of the cosmic man Parusha (Hinduism).FACT: Mans souls originate from a volcanic explosion initated by Lord Xenu (Scientology).According to you, these are also "facts".You see, the point is that when you start passing off religious beliefs as facts, you open the flood-gates of superstition and hence the line is blurred between "fact" and "belief" and the very usage of language becomes irrelevant and obsolete since one party (ie your party) likes to conveniently ignore and change the definitions of words to suite their arguments.If you cant respect the definitions of terms then the very usage of language becomes futile. Before you know it, well all start to redefine the english language to where cat means dog, up means left, and house means sit. If people like you start to use the term fact in-place of belief, then what do we call facts? What do we call beliefs? Did you already invent a new term? care to share?

According to you, these are also "facts".
That's curious... I don't remember saying that. Weird.Fact is this. If you are looking for people who believe that things don't change over time, and if you are looking for people who believe that evolution (change over time) is not real... you can go to another forum. You will find this forum of no contest to this fact. That's because nobody on this forum contests that things change over time, adapt, and mutate (just as our Glorious Created designed them to). We only contest that evolution does not go back millions of years (IE, the Theory of Evolution), or is the root of life as we know it today. That sir, is your religious belief. Contest it day and night if you like, it will always be your leap of faith. You are decieved and brainwashed, sad to say. We will believe the obvious truth in science (evolution), believe it for what it obviously is (the way God made it), and toss out the lie (Theory of Evolution). We don't have to swallow one with the other as you mistakenly have.Man was made fully formed, just as God intended him (and her) and every other living thing.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(BondiHarry;49310)
Except that gravity is something that is readily observable and, in experiments, can be verified. Macro evolution has NEVER been observed and 'established facts that have been logically tied together' assumes a great deal from a species developing into another species (ie something that has never even been observed is indeed fact) to the problem that still remains with the origins of life.
That's incorrect, actually. Speciation has been observed, both in the wild and in the lab. Darwin's Galapagos finches are one famous example.(BondiHarry)
The likelihood of a simple cell spontaneously developing is on a par with a tornado going through a junk yard and creating a Boeing 747.
That's a criticism of the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.(For the record, though it involves a fallacious use of probability and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the theory. Nobody is claiming that the cell assembled itself all at once.)(treeoflife)
You are decieved and brainwashed, sad to say. We will believe the obvious truth in science (evolution), believe it for what it obviously is (the way God made it), and toss out the lie (Theory of Evolution). We don't have to swallow one with the other as you mistakenly have.
treeoflife, language like this exposes the fact that you aren't interested in having an actual discussion so much as just trolling. How can you expect to have a genuine exchange of ideas if your argument is nothing but name-calling? I could call you "deluded and brainwashed" if I wanted to, and I could say my opinion is "obviously right" and yours is "obviously wrong" if I wanted to, but that's immature and counterproductive.
 

BondiHarry

New Member
Apr 2, 2008
6
0
0
68
That's incorrect, actually. Speciation has been observed, both in the wild and in the lab.
Then post/link the proof you have of this. The only evidence we have of 'evolution' is micro evolution. However, with micro evolution, no matter the changes in adapting to environment or through mans manipulation of genes, if you start with a dog (for example) you still have a dog at the end.
Darwin's Galapagos finches are one famous example.
Then let's clarify what we are talking about. The example (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html )you cite begins with a finch and ends with several other distinct groups ... OF FINCHES (and not robins or crows or any other type of bird). All this does is support micro evolution and NOT the macro sort.
That's a criticism of the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution, so it's irrelevant to this discussion
Evolution claims that simpler life forms develop into more complex life forms so how life originated is indeed relevant. Even a 'simple' cell is so complex that it is not possible for life as we know it to spontaneously generate.Sorry Lunar, the theory of evolution is a sham. It takes a modicum of truth (micro evolution where an existing species does 'evolve' within the species) and then expands to the absurdity of macro evolution (where a species changes into a different species). There is a logic of sorts to macro evolution but in the end, it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deny a creator because, if it is acknowledged there is a creator, then we actually have to consider that we may be subject to that creators laws be they physical (like gravity) or moral.
smile.gif
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(Lunar;49434)
treeoflife, language like this exposes the fact that you aren't interested in having an actual discussion so much as just trolling. How can you expect to have a genuine exchange of ideas if your argument is nothing but name-calling? I could call you "deluded and brainwashed" if I wanted to, and I could say my opinion is "obviously right" and yours is "obviously wrong" if I wanted to, but that's immature and counterproductive.
I stand by my statement. You're the immature one who can't handle it, appearantly.Furthermore, he outright LIED that "those other facts" would be facts to me too. Thus, I had right to call him brainwashed (someone needs to) because he is making things up that never came out of my mouth. It wasn't an opinion that he is brainwashed, it is a fact. I say lie, because that's what it is and that's what he did. Fabricating events that clearly never happend is a key indicator of someone who is dilusional, or brainwashed.The fact that you don't see this and over looked his lie shows me the fact that you don't want have an actual conversation as much as you want to troll. See how that works?
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(BondiHarry;49443)
Then let's clarify what we are talking about. The example (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html )you cite begins with a finch and ends with several other distinct groups ... OF FINCHES (and not robins or crows or any other type of bird). All this does is support micro evolution and NOT the macro sort.
They may be called finches, but they are, by scientific standards, different species. It says that right there in the article that you linked, if you bothered to actually read it.This is a standard creationist tactic - simply define any evolution that occurs as microevolution. Darwin's finches are an established example of one species transitioning into multiple other different species, whether you like it or not.(BondiHarry)
Evolution claims that simpler life forms develop into more complex life forms so how life originated is indeed relevant. Even a 'simple' cell is so complex that it is not possible for life as we know it to spontaneously generate.
For one, did you leave my last post? Because I specifically addressed the point of cells "spontaneously generating." Nobody argues that. It's a straw man.Secondly, of course want to solve the problem of where life came from in the first place. Yes, abiogenesis and evolution are both theories related to life. But that doesn't mean that an attack on one is an attack on the other, just because abiogenesis came first. Think about that logic. Science doesn't understand the origin of the universe - does that mean that, because the origin of the universe came first, our failure to understand its origins undermines everything in science? No, of course it doesn't. Similarly, just because we don't know where the first lifeform came from, that doesn't contradict all the evidence for evolution. The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. If it makes you feel any better, hypothesize that God created the first lifeform, and then be quiet about evolution already. I know how fond you are of the God of the Gaps.(BondiHarry)
There is a logic of sorts to macro evolution but in the end, it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deny a creator because, if it is acknowledged there is a creator, then we actually have to consider that we may be subject to that creators laws be they physical (like gravity) or moral.
smile.gif

Oh, please. There are many scientists who support macroevolution that believe are religious. What do you think motivates them? They're motivated by finding scientific truth, not denying their own religion.Also, are you honestly arguing that people argue for macroevolution because they want to believe that they aren't subject to the laws of gravity?(treeoflife)
I stand by my statement. You're the immature one who can't handle it, appearantly.
So you run around name-calling and then I'm the immature one because I "can't handle it?" Grow up.(treeoflife)
Furthermore, he outright LIED that "those other facts" would be facts to me too.
As always, you missed the point. He was saying that, by the standards that you've presented, you should accept all other religions as fact, because they're simply faith beliefs. Of course you don't, but that simply makes your reasoning inconsistent.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(Lunar;49479)
Grow up.As always, you missed the point. He was saying that, by the standards that you've presented, you should accept all other religions as fact, because they're simply faith beliefs. Of course you don't, but that simply makes your reasoning inconsistent.
Not name calling. It is what is is. Brainwashed. www.dictionary.com if you want a definition.His point was based in nothing. Are you saying that because I believe one thing, I believe all things? In that case that means you believe all those things too. You're right... of course I don't. There is absolutely no logical connection between the two, hence, brainwashing.
 

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(treeoflife)
Not name calling. It is what is is. Brainwashed. www.dictionary.com if you want a definition.
Ha. That's cute.So you clearly think that it's "true" that adren@aline is brainwashed. Well, I will put it to you like this, treeoflife: If I started listing all the things that I thought you were - and trust me, brainwashed doesn't even scrape the surface of it - I'd be banned from this board. However, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to omit them. I kindly ask that you do the same. If you think someone's wrong, argue your case instead of just calling them brainwashed.(treeoflife;49481)
His point was based in nothing. Are you saying that because I believe one thing, I believe all things?
No, he is saying that if you believe in one thing based on faith, then you have as much of a reason to believe in anything else based on faith. Since you didn't seem to understand the point that either he or I was making, I'll reiterate his point to you again:
You see, the point is that when you start passing off religious beliefs as facts, you open the flood-gates of superstition and hence the line is blurred between "fact" and "belief" and the very usage of language becomes irrelevant and obsolete since one party (ie your party) likes to conveniently ignore and change the definitions of words to suite their arguments.
Please read a little closer before you start accusing people of lying or being deluded. It doesn't make you look good when all it boils down to was you missing the point.
 

Jerusalem Junkie

New Member
Jan 7, 2008
654
0
0
67
Seems to me everyone here is trying to prove points that are counterproductive really. The Bible itself is only like what 4500 years old? Neither side really has an argument just resorting to name calling..Species go through an evolutionary change they have for thousands of years and will continue to do so. Just because its possible that things could have existed outside the scope of the Bible does not make them wrong...let me ask this, when you want to bake a cake do you turn to the Bible for a recipe? Is it there? Nope...exist outside the realm of the Bible. Cake baking wrong?