Evolution vs. Creation

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Again your lack of knowledge does not make the bible inaccurate.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
"So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover."

You are not allowed to look at anything in the Bible symbolically. Have you already forgotten you believe in talking snakes?

Says the guy who can't even refute what I said.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

Whoa...there little bunny rabbit, let's not jump ahead. What people would think, if I let you get away with that? The "one that makes the claim has the burden of proof" rule does not apply to you, how?

I've already met it. Your turn.

Drew Smith wrote:

Yeah, they can. There are approximately 6500 stars visible to the naked eye.
I guess Abraham was limited to 6500 descendants? I thought that all Jews were descended from Abraham. You mean that there are only 6500 Jewish people in the world?
<quoted text>
Nope, even in areas with no air pollution and no light.
You're never studied much about astronomy or the brightness of stars, have you.

He's never studied much about anything. his cult tells him that seeking knowledge is bad. he should do as he is told and all will be perfect.(and give us your money...)

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa...there little bunny rabbit, let's not jump ahead. What people would think, if I let you get away with that?
The "one that makes the claim has the burden of proof" rule does not apply to you, how?
Now, back up your BS or get stepping...

So how many stars can humans see, then?

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>So how many stars can humans see, then?

First, I did not make the claim, but since you asked,

Is it possible to count the visible stars? Yes!

Stars beyond that? No!

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course this is an uneducated point of view.
Scientific Facts In The Bible
Carol Brooks
In Romans 5 Paul seemed to be saying that something happened to all humanity because of Adam’s sin. That the entire race was affected—not by sinning themselves, but rather through the sin of Adam. These statements are very intriguing especially since they fly in the face of innumerable other verses that say exactly the opposite. However the emerging field of Epigenetics makes it not so hard to believe that Paul was more on target than even he could have realized. The ‘something’ that Paul referred to, could very well have been a physical change in Adam and Eve’s epigenome, which was then inherited by future generations. For what might be the most astounding scientific fact in the Bible, See Original Sin and Epigenetics

I've been wondering for the last year or so what kind of apologetic' s the Christians would come up with to explain the confirmed total lack of evidence for a 'original couple' and that we humans ARE actually related to the great apes.

KJV isn't quite doing it here, but I think I see an initial glimmering of it in this post. It's going to be very interesting to see it develop further

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>He's never studied much about anything. his cult tells him that seeking knowledge is bad. he should do as he is told and all will be perfect.(and give us your money...)

Hey, you need to chill, or I will send your Mom home right now!

woodtick57 wrote:

So how many stars can humans see, then?

To be more exact, how many stars could *Abraham* see, given that he had no telescope?

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

Is it possible to count the visible stars? Yes! Stars beyond that? No!

The stars beyond that aren't relevant, since the story claims that God asked Abraham to count the stars that he could *see*.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
First, I did not make the claim, but since you asked,
Is it possible to count the visible stars? Yes!
Stars beyond that? No!

You don't really understand your own arguments, do you? That is really sad...

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Today maybe but with out both light and air pollution I would bet many many more were visible.
You're grasping at straws.

I own some land in the mountains about 5 hours from where I live. It's about a mile high and 20 miles from the nearest town and well over a hundred miles from a large city.

The only artificial light we can see is a faint glow on the horizon in the direction of the aforementioned town...in other words it's almost as dark as a cave...except for the stars.

There are soooo many stars visible I have a hard time locating otherwise really easy to find constellations and asterisms such as the Pleiades, Cassiopeia, the Big Dipper, the Teapot, etc.

I would say that a least 4 or 5 times more stars are visible there.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>So how many stars can humans see, then?

What does it matter? There couln't have been more than a dozen people in the eighth century BC Levant who could count past ten anyway. The rest just put one pebble in their pocket for each goat and said 'this many'.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
I own some land in the mountains about 5 hours from where I live. It's about a mile high and 20 miles from the nearest town and well over a hundred miles from a large city.
The only artificial light we can see is a faint glow on the horizon in the direction of the aforementioned town...in other words it's almost as dark as a cave...except for the stars.
There are soooo many stars visible I have a hard time locating otherwise really easy to find constellations and asterisms such as the Pleiades, Cassiopeia, the Big Dipper, the Teapot, etc.
I would say that a least 4 or 5 times more stars are visible there.

I'm on the edge of the BWCAW in the Arrowhead of Minnesota. not an electric line or outdoor light within 12 miles, and only a few of them there...

hope you enjoy the viewing as much as we do...( We are so glad the northern lights are back...it was a looong dry spell there..)

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
I own some land in the mountains about 5 hours from where I live. It's about a mile high and 20 miles from the nearest town and well over a hundred miles from a large city.
The only artificial light we can see is a faint glow on the horizon in the direction of the aforementioned town...in other words it's almost as dark as a cave...except for the stars.
There are soooo many stars visible I have a hard time locating otherwise really easy to find constellations and asterisms such as the Pleiades, Cassiopeia, the Big Dipper, the Teapot, etc.
I would say that a least 4 or 5 times more stars are visible there.

I don't have it that good, but not too bad. About 5500 feet and twenty miles south of Albuquerque. The dominant features of the summer sky are the Milky Way and Scorpio. I haven't done much stargazing since my roomates threw away my recliner. A lot of dust, too. Crystal clear nights are pretty rare.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>Then why don't you tell us what rational beliefs are based upon, if not evidence and logic. You seem silent on that issue.

KJV wrote, "It's not anymore of an irrational belief then evolution"

Evolution is based upon evidence and logic. Here's a good summary of that evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Come back when you've got the tiniest smidgen of evidence for your belief that can compare.

KJV wrote, "or the GOO puddle creating life"

Please point to any posting in which I've claimed that a "goo puddle" created life. Can you do that?

KJV wrote, "...or a Singularity that contained all space and mass of the whole universe just starting to expand all on its own breaking an unbelievable strong gravity force. The strongest ever!
"

Again, provide an actual *scientific* source that asserts that the singularity contained "mass". Or that the force of gravity even existed at the time of the singularity.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/a...

"It is difficult enough to imagine a time, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the MATTER in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle."

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Universe-energy...

"The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang."

http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvari...

"There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. When they choose to be more careful, these cosmologists might say “Of course we don’t know for sure, but…” Which is true, but it’s stronger than that: the truth is, we have no good reasons to believe that those statements are actually true, and some pretty good reasons to doubt them."

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>I'm on the edge of the BWCAW in the Arrowhead of Minnesota. not an electric line or outdoor light within 12 miles, and only a few of them there...
hope you enjoy the viewing as much as we do...( We are so glad the northern lights are back...it was a looong dry spell there..)

Sadly we don't get the Aurora here or up in the mountains, but when we take our telescope up there the viewing is so darned good I don't want to go to bed. One night we got to watch the shadow of one of Jupiter's moons pass across the face of the planet.

What is the BWCAW?

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Sadly we don't get the Aurora here or up in the mountains, but when we take our telescope up there the viewing is so darned good I don't want to go to bed. One night we got to watch the shadow of one of Jupiter's moons pass across the face of the planet.
What is the BWCAW?

Seriously? The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness?!?

Which mountains are you by? Olympus Mons on Mars?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have it that good, but not too bad. About 5500 feet and twenty miles south of Albuquerque. The dominant features of the summer sky are the Milky Way and Scorpio. I haven't done much stargazing since my roomates threw away my recliner. A lot of dust, too. Crystal clear nights are pretty rare.

We love to visit New Mexico. Taos, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque are among our favorite cities, and we love to visit the Pueblos.

My wife is an accomplished potter and gets inspiration from several of the Pueblo potters...especially from the Acoma and Santa Clara areas.

Silver City is another favorite place as it is close to the Mimbres pottery and has a great museum featuring very old Mimbres pieces.

Sometimes I wish that we had settled in New Mexico instead of Arizona...but family won out.

Professor wrote:

Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.

That is why creationists do not have to prove a God any more than evolutionists have to provide repeated evidence that life can arise from non living matter.
Indeed I see that Darwin and cohorts actually stole their ideas from the bible written by ancient writers that already knew the universe had a beginning, the moon was created after the sun, plants, then sea life arose before other life with mankind last.
Currently the nested hierarchies of birds and whales is in dispute. I am not surprised because these two are ones that belong in the Devonian.
Hence when evolutionists find modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya I do not need to invent mythical theropods with modern bird feet for the empirical evidence to support a biblical creationist paradigm.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Seriously? The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness?!?
Which mountains are you by? Olympus Mons on Mars?

Yeah, about that far away from the BWCAW...sorry I'm not a canoe-ist?..:-)

White mountains of Arizona is where our country property is... not too far from the Painted Desert and the Petrified forest.