Creationists

[konradv]

You deny that his faith is a fact?

Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.

 

[daws101]

You deny that his faith is a fact?

Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

your faith is not science so it cannot be used as evidence, in reality your faith is a false and extremely poor substitute for fact.
it is a tale told by an unbalanced ignorant zealot ,all sound and fury ,signifying nothing.
(sorry Will)

 

[daws101]

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

bravo

Critical thinking can be your friend.

ah the correct term is analytical thinking and you do neither..

 

[daws101]

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?

bullshit! asked and answered..
example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.

 

[daws101]

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?

My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?

your faith is not science so it cannot be used as evidence, in reality your faith is a false and extremely poor substitute for fact.
it is a tale told by an unbalanced ignorant zealot ,all sound and fury ,signifying nothing.
(sorry Will)

Why is faith necessary to believe the theories on how life started and how everything became more complex through evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

A little more for you to take in.

Living-Fossils.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Living-Fossils.com

 

[Underhill]

The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

Yep. Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof! There they were.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?

asked and answered..
example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job. Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals. They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution. The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on. Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.

Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?

bullshit! asked and answered..
example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.

The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

•It “eats grass like an ox.”
•It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
•Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
•“He is the first of the ways of God.”
•“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.

•“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
•“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
•“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
•“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
•“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
•“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
•Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
•Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)
[a] Note: The word translated “reptile” here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that “Leviathan” was also a “tanniyn” (dragon).

 

[Youwerecreated]

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

Yep. Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof! There they were.

Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.

 

[wjmacguffin]

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.

The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.

Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals.

Your premise requires a vast conspiracy of scientists across hundreds of years to "toss data out to the contrary". Are you seriously suggesting that? Has the Devil somehow gotten into the minds of all scientists in all areas, forcing archaeologists, paleontologists, physicists, geologists, and so on, getting them to throw out contradictory data just to distract people from God?

They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...

First, who is "they"? Second, can you find me an example of scientists blaming aliens for data problems?

 

[Youwerecreated]

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.

The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.

Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals.

Your premise requires a vast conspiracy of scientists across hundreds of years to "toss data out to the contrary". Are you seriously suggesting that? Has the Devil somehow gotten into the minds of all scientists in all areas, forcing archaeologists, paleontologists, physicists, geologists, and so on, getting them to throw out contradictory data just to distract people from God?

They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...

First, who is "they"? Second, can you find me an example of scientists blaming aliens for data problems?

To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.

Many men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

 

[wjmacguffin]

To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.

You are assuming everything in the Bible is accurate and historical. That's fine to believe in, and I'm not saying your belief if wrong. But when it comes to proof, you have none. It's a matter of faith. Therefore, you cannot say with any certainty that those creatures were real. If you disagree with me, please provide a link to proof.

Many men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.

You did not address my argument that your hypothesis requires a large, powerful conspiracy that has existed for hundreds of years. Such a conspiracy is highly unlikely. While scientists as a whole may or may not have a viable explanation for the origin of life, that doesn't mean evolution is incorrect. The two are apples and oranges, and you can believe that God created life while still believing in evolution.

Also, you claim "many men within the scientific community" are in on this conspiracy. Can you provide any proof? Links?

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?

There are also hypotheses that the world really is flat, that ghosts exist, and that Nazis live in a secret base on the moon. Just because crackpots create a theory doesn't mean the scientific community embraces it. To put it another way, just because some Christians use religion to justify being racist doesn't mean all Christians are racist.

If you have proof and links that show I'm wrong, please provide them.

 

[Underhill]

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

Yep. Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof! There they were.

Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.

So tell me this. How would the molecular make up of a god look? How likely do you think the odds are of his existence, as apposed to ours?

 

[Underhill]

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.

The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.

The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons.

Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan. A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.

The lie is in that second bit. We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened. We have in many cases.

Can we prove everything? No. But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.

If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that. But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable. Science depends on evidence. It is the basis for all science. Faith requires a good story. Nothing else.