Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Like I said... study more.

 

They're not muddled to me. Here let me help you out, basically WanRen is saying that we humans have not evolved from apes and you have misunderstood the scientist into thinking that they said we humans evolved from apes when they weren't saying that at all.

 

Tell me the truth, teacher.
You can't find it either!

 

Good nite BB. Be sure to STUDY.

 

Nope...sorry can't buy that argument. If it was natural in all human beings then we would all be bisexuals but that is not the case whatsoever.

And you're right it's a minority preference, because that's their choice they made to engage into something that is unnatural that they knowingly know it is. They like to claim they were born like that but that is just a lie an excuse to justify their immoral deviant sexual behavior as being normal.

 

I knew it!
You were shining me on the whole time!
There never was a quote like that!
Was this really a lesson about how people will be dishonest when they are ashamed?
I think I understand.
Goodnight.

 

Throughout history in all known societies?
Ok. You go with that if it comforts you.
Do you want to start an Agnostics group?
What did you think of Incorporeal saying both he and Jesus are lesser gods? Both separate from the Father. Is he still on your team, or are you on his, or on different teams?
He can't be on our team because he thinks you can know if God is real, and he does know. He even is one. So he can't join our Agnostic club.

 

Does the bible state that or did you just make it up? Sorry you dont get to cite lack of evidence for evolution (even though its already proven with facts) while at the same time believing in something with no evidence other than what some Stephen Kings in bathrobes told you to believe.
Also you are in direct contradiction with Mitt Ryan who believes they were not around for that length of time.
You guys dont even agree amongst yourselves. Now why is that?

 

Isnt it true your bible says only God can create? Also because man exists now doesnt make them more successful. It only means they exist now. The earth changes, climate etc., asteroid impacts,volcanoes, earthquakes, ice ages, these all contribute to the success of life on Earth and the types of life. Man hasnt even existed for a length of time that is even worth comparing to the Dinosaur range. And Im not debating the existence period of Dinosaurs. We know it for fact. They thrived for millions of years before man. Man hasnt even begun to be as successful as they were. You choose to ignore facts yet call on faith when you have no facts to defend your god. Its laughable.
In the scale of things man will destroy each other long before an asteroid does. Man doesnt deserve the earth, all we do is pollute it and kill each other because ones god is more correct than the other.
Also you and Incorporeal are in disagreement with each other. Which one of you is correct? Did they live for millions of years and God was "playing" or are you correct and science is wrong and they only existed for....well I have no idea how long you say they existed for exactly. Maybe you can state the exact age of Dinosaurs according to your religion.

 

I truly made that one up. Nope it is not in the Bible.

Oh why not? Show me the 'PROOF' (www.thefreedictionary.com/proof #1 definition) that evolution is true.

Is that how you are interpreting what I said? Wow. You are really a dreamer.

Now why is it that you guys have to make so many false presumptions? I do agree with Mitt Ryan on this thread. None of the pro evolutionists have provided any "PROOF" of their claims. So why show I believe them?

 

I'm not absolutely certain about it, but I'm fairly convinced of it by the evidence. Why are you always poisoning the well by including the word theory alongside speculation and guess work?

A scientific theory isn't guesswork or speculation.

 

Before we go any further you fell short (both of you) of stating how long Dinosaurs existed for. State your claim (both of you) as to how long they have existed.
Ive already posted radiocarbon dating. Its not a theory. It is proof.

 

Nothing has been misunderstood. Do you honestly want to claim that modern biologists don't consider humans to be apes nor that we evolved from an ancestor that is commonly held by all extant apes?

 

Come now, AO.... God made the Dinosaurs on the 5 day of Creation.

 

Was that 5th day millions of years long?

 

Genesis says the day was from morning to evening... not that a day was a million years.

 

1) The argument you are invoking was made by two men (Humphrey and Austin) who decided that the Earth was approximately 65 million years old based on how much salt was added to the ocean per year. So, even if you buy this argument, you're refuting it at the same time by saying the Earth couldn't be millions of years old.

2) The argument has been debunked.

 

Salt doesn't evaporate and become rain clouds.

 

Oh i'm sorry. I overlooked that little detail. In direct answer to that question, I would have to surmise that they existed for at least two weeks calculated by our time standard. Radiocarbon dating is not a "PROOF". I am not compelled by the numbers generated by some man-made machine that is only as accurate as the programmer and the operator of that machine. You see, I know just a weee little bit about computers and programming techniques to realize that computers and computer operated equipment can be programmed to provide a desired result or output (to the extent of the physical and electrical limitations of the output device). So am I compelled by those findings of radiocarbon dating ? Nope. Remember the #1 definition of "proof" ( www.thefreedictionary.com/proof) before you use that word 'proof' again.

 

It is a sin to do many things. You don't know what's in the hearts of those doing natural things with the same sex.

 

So now we have it as stated fact that moses died 2488 from creation. Is that in years?
Born 2388 = 1400BC. So you should now have an accurate date of human creation, right?

 

The funny thing about science. You are always free to provide your counter science to prove it incorrect. To date, radiocarbon dating is fact. If say no, then post your science showing it is false. If you cant then all you can do is sit there and bask in how you are unable to disprove it.
I am amused at your thought process. You blindly follow a book written by guys in bathrobes that talks about talking snakes and a boat floating around with two of every animal, and for that you require no proof or even a shred of evidence, but you in the same breath say radiocarbon dating cannot be trusted even though every scientist on earth agrees with its results as fact. Again, if you say its false, you need to prove it. Its already been independently verified by multiple scientists. If you say no, get your bible, clutch it, and hope and pray your next post has the facts disproving the radiocarbon dating. Until then out of the two of us you are the only one without a shred of evidence that you are correct.
Also, you still refused to post the exact date of the Earth. Why is that? Are you embarrassed to post the age in years you think it is based on what your bathrobe guys told you it was in a public forum?

One more question. When your gas gauge in your car reads its getting near empty do you believe it and put more gas in? Or do you only not believe in some pieces of scientific equipment?

 

Conspired is your choice of words. In that line of thought, I would suggest that they have a vested interest in protecting the cause and the peers who are following the same agenda. Now if that is a (as you call it) a conspiracy, then I guess that you would be correctly using that term. On the other side of that same coin, there is the matter of them all wanting to receive as much funding as possible so they are likely to tickle the ears of those who are providing the funding.

 

Which would make peer review the new conspiracy theory.