Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright dude, it is pretty simple, when you take God out of the equation, then morality goes out as well, if no morality then everything goes. without morals then we can't differentiate between good and bad. We must have morals to differentiate between good and bad, to have morals then we must have a moral law giver. If we don't have a law giver than there are no morals, without morals then there is no such thing as good or bad and everything would be just "different" and morality would become relative.
Because who among us can take a moral high ground and stake the claim and audacity to know what is bad or good?
In this country we allow abortion but the middle east doesn't yet the middle east kills homosexuals for being gay. Are you willing to tell the arabs that they are a bad society for killing gays when you yourself live in a society in which it acceptable to murders innocent babies thus relative morality
To have moral absolute, you must have one person running the show, a lawgiver, which is God
Having 2 dinosaurs isn't the crazy part. Having 2 of every of the other ~5,000,000 species is the crazy part!
What 5 million species. God created "Kinds" of animals ie. dog kind, horse kind. So, there was only two dogs, two horse etc. on the ark.
Specization has occured since the animals got off the ark. But the term species is accually bad. It is somehow to denote enough change to mean that two close species cannot mate and have offspring like the donkey and the horse. But this is not the case. Many times zoos have put donkeys with zebras to produce a Zonkey. And a horse and a donkey produces a mule. A mule is sometimes sterile, but sometimes it is not. It is all how the different numbers of base pairs come together.
As far as dinosaurs are concerned there would be several varieties that we would call dinosaurs on the ark. For example there would be a pair that represented the triceratops (protoceratops, etc. would be in this category), one pair for Stegosaurus, one pair of braciosaur, etc... Of course these would all be baby versions of these animals because even though the ark was humungous there were still size limitations for animals and food and everything else.
Why did you dodge my question about the animals disembarking from the ark. Were they all vegetarians then? Cannot address that one can you, because what I said is logical. You YEC folks are not as adept as you think with your dodge and deflect tactics....As far as a day of judgement is concerned, I am comfortable in my non belief, so resorting to that little scare tactic has no effect on me whatsoever.
I do agree with you that nature and the world and universe around us are wonderful, and it's great that it has evolved the way it has.....
Yes, All animals were vegetarian. God created them like this. If you read Genesis, man was created to be a vegetarian.
After the flood, and due to the sin cursed world, animals now eat meat. And us humans now eat meat.
Yes, All animals were vegetarian. God created them like this. If you read Genesis, man was created to be a vegetarian.
After the flood, and due to the sin cursed world, animals now eat meat. And us humans now eat meat.
For many years scientist claimed the T-Rex was a predatorial, carnivore- killing machine till they found one and check its stomach contents which contained just as much vegetation than meat.
Evolution has no need to explain the variations of life. This is natural selection and was written about 25 years prior to Origins, by a Edward Blythe who was a Christian. Variation is not the problem. We know we do not look identical to our parrents. It is the claim by evolution that these slight changes can accumulate over millions of years to cause speciation. That an ameoba can become an amego, that a dandilion can become a doctor.
Darwin shoved Abiogenesis under the rug and so do you. But that is the point. Where do we come from. Since Evolution refuses to answer the question then we must accept we came from God. The other claims that evolution makes are useless. They serve no purpose.
All evolution explains is the variations in life, nothing else. It doesn't say that a dandelion will become a doctor, that's just stupid. You need to read about it before you make these silly arguments. I don't know how to put it - you don't know much about evolution.
Darwin shoving abiogenesis under the rug is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with evolution. Once again, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life!
We asked for specific evidence of one type of organism transforming into a completely different type of organism and you give us a bunch of information on "adaptation" and "variation"... trying to pass that off as your proof that organisms make huge leaps or keep varying until they finally become a new phyllum or class. This is nothing mroe than misrepresentation of evidence.
We've all seen this before and don't argue it. We fully accpet microevolution - adaptation and variation. However, this does not support one type of organism transforming into a different type.
This is exactly that same thing evolutionists do over and over again. You provide evidence of a type of plant, bacteria, etc adapting and you claim this supports that bacteria turning into a worm or that dinosaur turning into a hawk.
These are the leaps of logic evolution makes without evidence to support the position.
In your opinion, of course, based upon your presupposition that evolution and long ages is true.
I have the proof I need. My proof may not be the same as someone else's proof. It does require faith to believe this, however, neither is it a blind faith nor is it an illogical faith. It actually, IMO, takes less faith to believe the bible is the word of God than to believe in molecules-to-man evolution.
When is an inconsistancy/apparent contradiction not an inconsistency/apparent contradiction? When there is at least one reasonable explanation presented to refute said inconsistency/apparent contradition. Just because one doesn't agree or accept the explanation does not mean the inconsistancy/apparent contradiction stands. As long as there is one reasonable explanation, the inconsistency is refuted.
You're very good at looking up apparent inconsistencies and apparent contradicitions via the web, so I'm sure you can also look up all the sites that refute the issues you've raised. I don't have the time needed to do it for you. It'll be a great learning experience.
If you think AIG's models work then show me how they work. I have posted the math several times showing that it DOESN'T work. Prove me wrong, please.
Go from 8 (on the Ark) to 600,000 (Exodus) people in 875 (time between flood and Exodus) years with the population doubling every 150 years (AIG's model).
The inconsistencies are there, ignore them if you want, but they are there.
Alright dude, it is pretty simple, when you take God out of the equation, then morality goes out as well, if no morality then everything goes. without morals then we can't differentiate between good and bad. We must have morals to differentiate between good and bad, to have morals then we must have a moral law giver. If we don't have a law giver than there are no morals, without morals then there is no such thing as good or bad and everything would be just "different" and morality would become relative.
Because who among us can take a moral high ground and stake the claim and audacity to know what is bad or good?
In this country we allow abortion but the middle east doesn't yet the middle east kills homosexuals for being gay. Are you willing to tell the arabs that they are a bad society for killing gays when you yourself live in a society in which it acceptable to murders innocent babies thus relative morality
To have moral absolute, you must have one person running the show, a lawgiver, which is God
Now this is where your thinking goes way off track...Belief in God has nothing to do with empathy or morals...I find your view in this arrogant and insulting.
Charles Darwin says, that black people are lesser evolved than whites. No matter how you slice it, it was the imperialistic thinking of that time which had nothing to do with science and it was racist belief and thinking.
Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin, it was a concept around for hundreds of years, all the way back to the time of the early Greeks, Darwin managed to translate it into science. All presupposition which has carried on generation after generation.
We aren't here to argue if Darwin was a great guy. We are here to discuss evolution. Darwin is irrelevant to the truth about evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.