Toggle sidebar

Are you a Christian?

Sort by date Sort by votes
sirearl said:
Bones dissolve,so my 5 year old grandaughter tells me.:)
Click to expand...

I present to you

Did humans and dinosaurs live at the same time?
No. The Flintstones and Alley Oop notwithstanding, the last of the dinosaurs — with the exception of the birds, which are dinosaur descendants — died about 65 million years ago. There is no reputable evidence of human life at the time, or at any time until about 2.5 million years ago, the age of the oldest known fossils in the genus Homo.
There have been periodic claims of human footprints, teeth, etc. being found together with dinosaur tracks or other fossils. None of this fossil evidence is credible; all cases of "human remains" from the time of the dinosaurs have been investigated and found to be either forgeries or misidentifications. For more detailed information, visit 'The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy'.
​
Click to expand...

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/faq.php#humansanddinos

So there :p

There are plenty of dinosaur fossils found with other species inside of the stomach area :p

Fossils are occasionally found with the remains of animals and plants inside what were once their guts. These tummy contents can shed light on what they once ate — for instance, past research showed a mammal predator apparently had a tiny dinosaur as its last meal
external-link.png
.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
matt seymour said:
No, there is no evidence, just a book - or several books depending on your fairy tale of choice.

God is noticeable only by his absence. He does nothing and answers no one.

Even if he exists, which he doesn't, he is bloody useless.
Click to expand...

All your body parts that you take for granted, makes me laugh, it is the fact, that you seem to think, that you have no-one to thank, for your gift of life, you have today.

You see the problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place.

Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed.

So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye, could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

More than a century has passed since then.

Has the problem been solved?

No. On the contrary, since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain?

Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did?

Jastrow concluded: "It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.

God is taking note of what you are saying Matt, so choose your words carefully.

(Hebrews 4:12, 13) 13 And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
If you're going to quote Darwin, be good enough to quote in full, don't edit what he says to agree with you.

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.


This has been done. You can find every stage of eye, from barely light sensitive, to much better than ours.

You're using old sources of information DCE. Darwin died many years ago.
 
Upvote 0
This might of interest for those of you with a few million to spare.

Today the letter wrote by Albert Einstein goes on sale, its the same letter in which he says

"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Albert-Eins...itten-Shortly-Before-His-Death-/190736802914?

Put your bids in now. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haunted Worlds
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
This might of interest for those of you with a few million to spare.

Today the letter wrote by Albert Einstein goes on sale, its the same letter in which he says

"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Albert-Eins...itten-Shortly-Before-His-Death-/190736802914?

Put your bids in now. :)
Click to expand...

This is what is far more valuable Spiritual Sight.

The spiritual eye as well as the physical eye is a gift of God. (Pr 20:12)

He promises to heal spiritual eyes as well as physical ones and to remove all causes for tears.

One cannot understand God's purposes without the gift of spiritual eyesight.

On the other hand, God hides his truth from the eyes of those who are stubborn or rebellious, letting "their eyes become darkened."

They have [literal] eyes, but they cannot see [spiritually]."-Jer 5:21; Isa 59:10.

Albert Einstein didn't have Spiritual Sight that's for sure.

That's why Jesus said who was also a Jew

(Matthew 5:3) 3*"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Spiritual Sight is a made-up concept to make people think they're part of something special. Nothing more nothing less. In fact that's the entire purpose of the Bible.

Its used by people like yourself to claim you are right, and that you have something that I should want... But I am not jealous. I've seen many claims like this, in fact every advert on TV follows the same lines - look at the shiny shiny, I have the shiny shiny, you know you want the shiny shiny...

But I'm not a apple fan so I don't buy it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haunted Worlds
Upvote 0
Mick.H said:
Notice the bible cretionist thanking you. He thinks you are being serious and helping his argument. You have to feel sorry for the chap :D poor soul.
Click to expand...

I am serious ,I have concrete evidence that man lived before dinosaurs every time I go on the M25.:|
 
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
Spiritual Sight is a made-up concept to make people think they're part of something special. Nothing more nothing less. In fact that's the entire purpose of the Bible.

Its used by people like yourself to claim you are right, and that you have something that I should want... But I am not jealous. I've seen many claims like this, in fact every advert on TV follows the same lines - look at the shiny shiny, I have the shiny shiny, you know you want the shiny shiny...

But I'm not a apple fan so I don't buy it. :)
Click to expand...

This is what Jesus said to his disciples, which helps you to see, that even Kings and prophets, couldn't see or understand what Jesus was talking about, but what Jesus was advertising, is not part of this world, so you can't buy it, that's the difference.

(Luke 10:23, 24) 23 With that he turned to the disciples by themselves and said: "Happy are the eyes that behold the things YOU are beholding. 24*For I say to YOU, Many prophets and kings desired to see the things YOU are beholding but did not see them, and to hear the things YOU are hearing but did not hear them.

This is why though.

(2 Corinthians 4:2-4) 3 If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
How about we just stick with the Darwin quote for a moment DCE - before we move on to new ground, lets just make sure we're both in agreement.

Do you accept the quote as I gave above is the word of Darwin? Because you've created a whole argument around the idea he said something which he plainly did not say.

What do you have to say about this?
 
Upvote 0
Can those who steal other people's words at least provide links or even provide quotation marks or perhaps even use the [ quote][/ quote] which gives people the knowledge that they're not actually typing, talking, debating or discussing anything with particular people on this forum...

Sorry, but it really annoys me.
 
Upvote 0
DCE said:
I wouldn't believe you, there is too much evidence,
Click to expand...

Based on your methods Dan Browns 'The Da Vinci code' is real.

There is a Louvre in paris.
Michaelangelo is documented to have existed and his works can still be seen
There is still an organisation known as Opus Dei............

In fact all the places, people and many events told in that book can be fact checked and verified - much more so than the bible.

So is it:

A) Dan Brown is a prophet as his writings can be verified to a far greater extent than the bible.

or....


B) The bible, like all other similar writings, used contemporary places, people and events in it's stories?

This is childs play - you would have thought after 2000 years of getting your story straight these religions would have come up with ways to cover these obvious flaws.
 
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
How about we just stick with the Darwin quote for a moment DCE - before we move on to new ground, lets just make sure we're both in agreement.

Do you accept the quote as I gave above is the word of Darwin? Because you've created a whole argument around the idea he said something which he plainly did not say.

What do you have to say about this?
Click to expand...

No matter how plausible Darwin’s theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists, they must ultimately face the question, Even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start?

In other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest, but in arrival of the fittest and the first!

However, as Darwin’s remarks on the evolution of the eye indicate, he was not concerned with the problem of how life began.

He wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.”

We have to remember what Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.”

That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today.

The odds are stacked against it.

Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated.

To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation!

Certainly, it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off.

Only someone in "want of heart" would think that.
 
Upvote 0
Sorry DCE - but you are now being downright dishonest.

DCE said:
In other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest, but in arrival of the fittest and the first!
Click to expand...

In an infinite universe, even the longest odds, the most unlikely scenario's are possible.


The odds are stacked against it.
Click to expand...
Yet you concede the possibility remains?

Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated.

To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation!
Click to expand...
This is just plain silly - you know full well that early life would not have consisted of male and female using reproductive sex. This process evolved millions of years after life began. There are more ways to reproduce than the way we do.

Grasping at straws aren't we?

Certainly, it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off.
Click to expand...
Whereas it's perfectly fine to believe that a magic man in the sky made the entire universe just for you and your fellow believers? :rolleyes:


Only someone in "want of heart" would think that.
Click to expand...
Only someone in want of a brain would think that. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Perfectly copied and pasted DCE. If you put as much effort into replying with your own words as you do that of searching Google, this discussion might be interesting.

The trouble is discussing anything with you is a disjointed mess, because I'm not replying to DCE - I'm replying to the Copy and Paste guy you've found somewhere... That's why nobody ever receives a direct response from you.

Why should I have debates with someone by proxy?

You listed a stream of books in your library just a few posts ago, but it seems you've read none of them, and cannot speak as any authority on the subject. I may as well go to the places you're finding your information, and ask them directly.

All I want answering is this. Do you agree, by using the information you did above - namely misrepresenting what Darwin said, that you have tried misleading us into believing your position on the subject?

Yes or no...

It starts with you DCE, you have to accept the truth, whether you like it or not.
 
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
It starts with you DCE, you have to accept the truth, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I already have the truth, so it's not necessary for me to debate anything.

As for Google and WhackyWiki it twists everything, so the reader can find what ever he is looking for, and it will say what he thinks it should say.

Its Satan's propaganda machine, it will tell you what you want to hear, rather than, what the truth really is, I though you would have known that?

Did Darwin say this

Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)

This still remains true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Did anyone catch the creationist conspiracy aired on bbc 3.

It was quite interesting how prepared the creationists were to spit in the face of evidence. They used the same old same old defenses "i think it takes more faith not to believe in god" etc etc.

At least one of the people featured on the show accepted evolution as she said "there is just too much evidence and i don't want to be blinkered and ignore that" But she swiftly followed it with "i think god could have started the process" and how she still believes in god etc etc.

The others were left saying things like "i still believe in a young earth and i am happy with that" in which he was basically saying "stick your evidence up your arse i don't care i believe in god and that's that" :D

They just ended up looking like they were grasping at straws and saying anything they could to preserve the idea of their god. One was even saying how he "loves science and want it to be everything it can be" but when presented with scientific theory, he jumped on the word theory not understanding the context of its use when used in conjunction with science.

Very stubborn peoples.
 
Upvote 0
Quite funny that you say such things DCE yet when I've googled specific paragraphs from you, Google finds the exact same wordings from other forums and other people that you are posting "claiming" to be your own words.

The only person that is not telling the truth here is YOU!
 
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
I'm asking do you accept that you were misleading us by using that information.

Is this true?
Click to expand...

If you Google it, it tell you Darwin said it, who I am to argue.

I know the eye just didn't evolve, and neither did our brain, so evolution is nonsense and the greatest piece of mis-information of all time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
DCE said:
If you Google it, it tell you Darwin said it, who I am to argue.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you argue that someone has mislead you by giving you a false representation of his statement?

Shouldn't you have confirmed what was truly said before you used the same argument on us which could mislead others?
 
Upvote 0
Subbynet said:
Why didn't you argue that someone has mislead you by giving you a false representation of his statement?

Shouldn't have you confirmed what was truly said before you used the same argument on us which could mislead others?
Click to expand...

Everything Darwin said misleads everyone that listens to his nonsense, to be honest, but he wasn't totally convinced himself, what he was saying was true, that's a fact, not a theory.
 
Upvote 0
I'm asking why you (DCE) used his words in the way you did. I am not asking if you think its right or wrong.

Did you know that the quote you gave us was just half of the real quotation from Darwin? Were you aware of that?

Or, did you know this, but decided to mislead us anyway?
 
Upvote 0
Admin bump to reopen due to age. Looking at the conversation above, please be sure to keep it civil folks. It's a long thread but it might be worth remembering the OP :)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cornish Steve
Are you a rastafarian with rosacrucian tendencies?
Replies
0
Views
469
Time Out
Cornish Steve
Cornish Steve
I
Are you an atheist or agnostic?
Replies
115
Views
6K
Time Out
stockdam
S
?
Do you give/work for charity and if so why?
Replies
6
Views
774
Time Out
-
?
P
Help building a web design portfolio...
Replies
0
Views
2K
General Business Forum
Preemo
P
thetime22
Can you dunk?
Replies
8
Views
720
Time Out
-
?

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back