[Jack O'fagan]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

Yes, i do believe the creation of stars was first. But i mean simply that this wonderful earth we have, and the stars and animals, it seems to make sense to me that they change over time, in evolution, but also that believing that they just happened from a scientific view is far fetched, and that divine intervention in our design and lives must be present

But God tells us that He made the stars after He made grass on Earth. Please explain why you think God lied? If you think that Genesis 1 is not true then why would you move on to Genesis 2? Surely only a fool would believe a virgin birth and a resurrection from a book they don't trust.

YIC

Jack

[Redeemed Papist]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

Well, from a scientific view, every humans genetic code is unique, so the resurrection of one would be thus far inprobable. However, it could also be said that its the soul that resurrects, not the flesh, unless a godly figure as Jesus.

So it was magic and not science. So why isn't everything God does magic and not science?

[NiggsBosom]

Originally Posted by Jack O'fagan

But God tells us that He made the stars after He made grass on Earth. Please explain why you think God lied? If you think that Genesis 1 is not true then why would you move on to Genesis 2? Surely only a fool would believe a virgin birth and a resurrection from a book they don't trust.

YIC

Jack

As for the stars, i think its merely because without the sun, grass would not grow. If you left a pot of grass in a dark cupboard and watered it reguraly and gave it rich soil, it still couldnt grow. Its not that i think he lied, i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words. I keep that in mind when i read the Bible, and feel i cant judge a religion, especially not my own, or the sciences, without familiarizing myself fairly to both

[NiggsBosom]

Originally Posted by Redeemed Papist

So it was magic and not science. So why isn't everything God does magic and not science?

Personally, i wouldnt call it magic but Gods will as simply divine. And science is just humanities way of understanding the world, not a replacement for God. Creationism and darwinism are the biggest disagreement to my statement, but it could just be that we dont fully understand yet

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

...i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words...

So the Bible doesn't accurately reflect God's massage for mankind? God of the Bible is omnipotent (I'll wait while you look that up). That means that if the Bible contained misleading or false information, God could change every Bible in the world to be accurate, easier than you or I saying "Boo".

God's failure to do so leads one to conclude either:

1) The Bible says exactly what God wants it to say, or
2) God does not exist.

Which of these possibilities do you believe to be true?

[Jack O'fagan]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

As for the stars, i think its merely because without the sun, grass would not grow. If you left a pot of grass in a dark cupboard and watered it reguraly and gave it rich soil, it still couldnt grow. Its not that i think he lied, i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words. I keep that in mind when i read the Bible, and feel i cant judge a religion, especially not my own, or the sciences, without familiarizing myself fairly to both

I have followed your logic and used it to look at the resurrection instead.

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

As for His body, i think its merely because without life, it would decay. If you left a body in a tomb in a hot climate for three days it would be nothing but stinking, oozing maggot ridden puss incapable of reanimation. Its not that i think he lied, i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words. I keep that in mind when i read the Bible, and feel i cant judge a religion, especially not my own, or the sciences, without familiarizing myself fairly to both

Logically I suppose this is what you think. If not please let me know why.


YIC

Jack

[Redeemed Papist]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

Personally, i wouldnt call it magic but Gods will as simply divine. And science is just humanities way of understanding the world, not a replacement for God. Creationism and darwinism are the biggest disagreement to my statement, but it could just be that we dont fully understand yet

It doesn't matter what you call it. If God is not bound by physics then His actions are entirely supernatural - magic is a convenient word which defines that.

You are saying that science and God are compatible. Yet science more and more undermines God until you are left screaming "But God is magic and can do what He wants!" at the scientists. You are sidelining God as a god of the gaps. The problem with that line of reasoning is that the gaps God is hiding in keep disappearing.

God simply is right and science is wrong. It's the only way it makes sense. Every word of the Bible is right or it's just an increasingly absurd piece of allegory with little or no contemporary relevance that's manifestly factually inaccurate.

Humanity's way of understanding the world? What's the need if you have faith in God?

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

As for the stars, i think its merely because without the sun, grass would not grow. If you left a pot of grass in a dark cupboard and watered it reguraly and gave it rich soil, it still couldnt grow. Its not that i think he lied, i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words. I keep that in mind when i read the Bible, and feel i cant judge a religion, especially not my own, or the sciences, without familiarizing myself fairly to both

By that logic one could say the ressurection of Christ was allegorical and actually that His ideas would live on long after His death and that He did not come back to life becauses He was only human.

Thine own words condemn thee. You are not a follower of God

YIC

[salvation-in-a-can]

Originally Posted by Glendora Christianson

AN EVILutionist told me that he's 33% Daffodil and 98% Chimpanzee. I told him I'm 100% Jesus!

Praise be.

[MitzaLizalor]

Here's what you say:

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

As for the stars, i think its merely because without the sun, grass would not grow..

Now have a look at what God says:

God

[DAY 2]

Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

[DAY 3]

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth

[DAY 4]

Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

SOURCE

Perhaps you'd suggest that these are not days? Maybe you "think" they are 2¼billion years each? God does not say that and God made the universe. How many universes have you made?

But let's take those 2¼ bn. years on board and see what we get.
So from the historical record we'd see that 4,500,000,000 years from the beginning of time God created the firmament, its purpose being to divide the waters above from the waters below. The Bible records what God said and also what happened. The two agree: what God said He was going to do is what actually happened.

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
KJV

Then we'd need to imagine that from the 4,500,000,001st year to the 6,750,000,000th year God commanded the the gathering together of the waters together with the emergence of dry land and the creation of grass, herbs and fruit trees.

Genesis 1:10-11 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
KJV

Continuing with this charade we'd find that next up, by the time the 9,000,000,000th year had ended, God had created the sun & the moon & all the stars and had set them in the firmament.

Genesis 1:16-17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
KJV

So since according to the secularist science you proclain neither grass nor herbs nor fruit trees can get along without the sun, how do you accommodate the period from the beginning of creation day 3 to the end of creation day 4 when all of those plants were being created but the sun had not?

That's a 4,499,999,998 year gap in your theory. How do you explain it?

Additionally, I've heard that these same secularists claim that God had not created the stars by day three (or the nine billionth year) and that stars are still being created! God is really quite clear on exactly this point; don't take my word for it.

READ THIS






.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by NiggsBosom

As for the stars, i think its merely because without the sun, grass would not grow. If you left a pot of grass in a dark cupboard and watered it reguraly and gave it rich soil, it still couldnt grow.

So you believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe can't make grass grow in the dark. Interesting.

Its not that i think he lied, i simply think through years and years of translations and edits, the bible could have changed from Gods first words.

So you believe that the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe has less control over the text of His own Book than Danielle Steele has over one of her novels. Interesting.

Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Evolution is sparked primarily through a change in an organisms environment, for example, a decrease in available food. Sharks though, aren't facing such a change, as there are plenty of fish and other sea, and sometimes land, creatures to feed on. The mutations of evolution, therefore, don't take hold and prove superiority over the current common shark.

I see you don't understand evolution. Please go learn something about the theory of evolution before you further embarrass yourself and all the other atheists.

Even a 10th grade kid can tell you that evolution is not supposed to be a "voluntary" process.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/

If mar experiences or experienced a flood, it would be a caused by a climactic anomaly, most likely caused by a change in rotation or orbit, by say, a comet, astaroid, or other stellar object colliding with it. Even a slight change in the orbit or atmosphere can spike the temperature, melt any frozen liquid, and result in a flood.

In other words, you can't. This was a wad of random speculation.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Thats not so much a fault of evolution as its a fault of psychology and sociology. Its true that in the process of natural selection, the "stupid" would die off more quickly than the "smart". However, humanity and compassion have put a kink in that. Various programs, even random acts of kindness, like stopping someone from stepping into the street in front of a car, halt survival of the fitest.

This is a good answer. Aside from the grammar and spelling.

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

As i mentioned above, evolution is brought about by a change or need. Humans have instead of changing to better ourselves, taken to changing the environment to better suit our needs. For example, if a small group of people lived entirely isolated, and the only available resources were rocks, dirt, and slightly toxic berries, if a few of those people have a slight genetic mutation that allows the body to digest those berries, they can survive while those who cannot would die off, making that mutation "the new normal". So if our environment changed and those who grew a third arm from a mutation survived where others struggled, we'll most likely evolve into a three armed creature.

This shows a much better understanding of the lies of evolution than the land shark answer above. I'm glad you took my advice and learned something about the lies you try to perpetuate.

However, your statement suggests that evolution is only possible in the most desperate of circumstances; particularly when linked to your previous answer about fools.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nurture our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

Thats a tricky question, as it again isnt evolutionary as it is psychological. All i can say without changing this into a debate on moralities is that the idea of nuturing ones offspring is actually quite young. A large majority of none-human organisms consume the sick or weak, so only the strong survive, part of natural selection. An example of this mentality is a rare breed of bird, a strain of boobie, that lays only two eggs. When they hatch, they mature in the mothers nest for a few weeks, and the stronger then kills and consumes the weaker. If the chick is attack, the mother wont intervene. I know its a bird, considered a lesser form, but a similar mentality is shared among many species

Interesting. First, you say killing babies is "psychological". Evolutionary theory would indicate that the psychological predisposition to exterminate our own young should only occur if it is to the species' evolutionary advantage. That predisposition, given the successful infanticides, should die out.

You then use an example of infanticide which clearly demonstrates survival of the fittest as the entire point of its occurrence. The stronger chick killing the weaker eliminates the weak from the line.

Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Not so much a matter of evolution, but biology and the such. First, of those ancestors, cremations have to be accounted for, as well as any deaths resulting in a general lack of corpse, ie fires, animal attacks, cases of cannibalism, gruesome blender accidents, and countless other nasty ways to go out. Secondly, decomposition. Humans are entirely organic beings (besides those knee pins and hip replacements, but even those decompose, just far slower). Worms, beetles, flys, and fungus, just to name a few decomposers, all consume flesh and the like, especially that of ancestors who didnt widely use preservatives to pickle the dead, not including ancient Egyptian pharaohs and the like. The reason behind the mysterious lack of a massive worm population is simple, worms consume, and like us, what goes in must come out. It might seem a strech, but most ancestral humans, if not focilized, are converted to none other than dirt.

It sure does seem a "strech", when the foundations of civilization were in deserts, where corpses are typically mummified.

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?

Im afraid connections like this are, to date, impossible. Currently, the most common ancestor of all creatures arent angels and demons but single celled organisms, which grew to intertabrates, to fish, to amphibians, to mammals, and man. Angels and demons are currently, to the scientific community, biblical and stuff of legends.

So you don't believe the Bible at all. Interesting. How can you be a Christian?

Explain talking snake in the garden through evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.

For a question like this, it is, as of now, impossible for sound physical evidence of a talking snake to put forth. The only creature that can communicate with man is currently man, so the criteria for a creature capable of speech is limited to our own voice boxes. The modern snake doesn't share a common vocal and oral design, so it cannot communicate as we do. Its lineage traces back to primal lizards, and then to legged fish (the original amphibian), so as far as we know, the snake has never had the capacity to speak as humans do.

So you're saying the Bible is lying, yet again.

Explain the Loch Ness Monster through evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me

It's still currently under debate whether or not the loch ness monster even exists. No hard evidence has been agreed upon to actually be loch ness, only some accounts and photographs, which could easily be tricks of smoke and mirrors. If evidence of the loch ness monster does come to light, it is possible that it evolved as a mutation of an unknown species similar to the dinosaur, or another aquatic mammal, like the platypus.

A platypus bigger than a school bus? Now you're just being silly.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.
If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben

The modern tree still grows really quite slow, and slower still as it grows. It is also possible that, untill it evolves further, a few hundred feet is as tall as trees are getting, as an organism that massive would require equally massive amounts of nutrients to grow. When the nutrients begin to run ahort, the tree grows slower, and when the soil is depleted, the tree would die

I see you don't understand capillary action. Please read up on how trees transport nutrients and try again.

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better

Behavior is something formed by society. When we evolved, and the first humans came about, it is likely that we still held behavioral ties to apes. But as we continued to form communities, and societies were formed, behaviors changed, and the modern human began to emerge.

OK, then explain Juggalos.

Why are there still monkeys?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier

The idea of the stronger destroying the weaker isn't necessarily true. If it were, earth would most likely be dominated soley by trees, as plant life(as algae or primal ferns) is considered the first evolution of life. Evolution could be thought of more as one species breaks away from the prime species and changes through natural selection. If you follow the belief that apes are the ancestors of humans, then the logic is that through mutations, certain apes, to be humans, produced more offspring, and grew exponentially, continueing to fit the environment better than apes, making humans. Now, unless the human race feels we will survive better without monkeys, its unlikely they'll die off any time soon.

I see you still don't understand the basics of evolution's false human-lineage doctrine. Please go study some more. You're embarrassing yourself.

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.

The best example of this is the great extinction ending the dinosaur era. As it was a prehistoric time and no records exist to document this event, it is unclear how exactly it happened, <speculation>

Why not just say, "I can't account for this, because I don't know what happened"?

Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?[/B]
I would say the lack of fossils foorr these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.

I am afraid the modern society has written such creatures off as stuff or legends, myths and not true creatures. Thus far, solid evidence has not been found to support the existence if these creatures.

Dinosaurs are dragons. There are also fossils of giant sea serpents (and some pretty darned big ones still existing).

Please learn a bit before you continue to embarrass yourself.

Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.

As i am not in any manner God and thus cannit account for the ancestral humans nit mentioned. No one could say certainly that they aren't mentioned because they didn't exist as those around when the bible surfaced are no longer with us. Nit every single creature around today could be included in the Holy Book, and i can only assume pre human creatures didnt have a place in the Bible.

Why would you think there were pre-human creatures? The Bible doesn't say that God created sub-humans, then let them wander about for a few million years, then started over with real humans.

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is through the power of God.

In that case, cells would have anti-virus toxins, as viruses act on the same principle. It is survival of the fitest, and if spiders havent evolved into wasp resiatant insects, they would become the fitest, and wasps would die off. Its all a matter of wasps prey evolving fast enough.

So then why are there still any spiders?

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.

This is a complicated question, but ill give it my best shot. Though hereditary diseases, like those that plague the english royal family do tend to surface through incest, if you speak of cain and not of evolution from apes, it could be a matter of there was no genetic disorders yet.

But you don't believe in Creation. You think we evolved from monkeys. So then there surely must have been genetic disorders.

Try again.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09

Though it sounds bad, it is entirely possible that the lineage of king henry VI was false. Religion held most of the government during that period of time, and the royal family used its image as the holy rulers put to work by God to rule the earth to prove their power. In this case, the possibility that king henrys connection to adam and eve was purely religious belief.

Please provide evidence of this assertion.

Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evolutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09

Well firstly, it should be considered that no fossils or other proof of the unicorns existence is yet to be uncovered, and i suppose when the unicorns existence is proven it will be easier to pin point the use of a horn, as environment, life span, behavior, and even diet all play a part in a evolutionary change.

A rhinoceros is a unicorn, Sparky.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09

The reason there are no two celled organisms is, simply put, there were none. This is because a single celled organism, say, bacteria, cannot support a multicelled formation. It could split and multiply through mitosis, but couldnt sustain a complex organism. Its not until the appearance of primitive plants and invertebrates that evolution created a stable complex multi celled life form.

Once again, you don't understand your own science. Get to studying.

I'm ashamed for you.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09

Yes, you could say life originated from mud, but not the mud itself, instead the single celled life forms living in it. Mud is and always will be inanimate. Its the decomposed remains of earlier plants and animals and not living. Thus, it cant evolve. Now, if the worl dried up and there was no more water to make mud, well that would be the end of it, along with everything living.

Rachel wasn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, if you catch my drift.

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Chemicals cant think because they arent alive. Chemicals are the precise mixture of various elements, and our brains only think through electrical pulses. Until the chemicals are introduced to energy to produce a reaction, they cannot acomplish anything. Its that energy in our brains that allows us to think, through a multitude of complicated relations and reactions. In that case, a single compound cannot think.

And yet you think that somehow all those complicated chemicals self-assembled into a brain?

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Using biblical events for this one, in the garden of Eden, as adam and eve lived happily without being tainted by knowledge, they didnt need or care for clothea. Clothes are, then, not required for life. The evolutionary equivalent is hair, on your head and body, but aside from that, the role of clothes is simply societal, and not necessary to live.

Clothing isn't necessary. Tell that to Eskimos.

What is the evolutionary advantage of demonic possession
Please explain how demonic possesions humans, horses, dogs and pigs helps them to be a more successful species. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Though there are no scientifically proven accounts of demonic posessions, it can be argued that it would be easier to handle dirty or dangerous work if you have a human glove to work through.

That doesn't even make sense. Did you not understand the question?

Do you believe that Jesus was more primitive and less "fit" than today's slugs and worms?
Christ earthly ministery was 2,000 years ago, a more primitive time than now. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

As this is question requires an opinion, not facts, i can only use my own opinion. Personally, i say neither is more primitive. Both serve there purposes and their bodies are fitting. Accounts of human history, specifically greek and roman, and the art depicting them, show little to no discrepancies between humans then Nd now. It could actually be argued that Jesus was the start of modern man, and therefore no less primitive. Again though, this is only my opinion, and others will differ.

Where would you get the idea Jesus was "the start of modern man"?

What did the rocks and lightning evolve from?
According to evolutionary theory, all life evolved out of rocks and lightning,Please show the evolutionary linage and transitional forums for rocks and lighting. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Actually, the original life was believed to be aquatic bacteria. Rocks, the composite of dirt and sand, isnt living and cannot evolve or have a lineage out side of the occurance of fossils, while lightning, also in aninate, is the release of electrical energy that builds between friction in the particles of air and clouds, cannot evolve either. Im afraid neither have a lineage.

And so . . . where did they come from?

Please show the disorder inherent in evolution
Scientific "laws" regarding thermodynamics and entropy say that things go from ordered to disordered. ?]How do you explain evolution in light of this. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

The laws of thermodynamics, ir enthalpy, and entropy, or the existence of "chaos" isnt related to the idea if evolution. Evolution is a branch of biology, while enthalpy and entropy are from the branch of chemistry. Specificially, enthalpy and entropy are used to explain spontaneous reactions, or sudden chemical reactions that occur in nature, and play only a slight part in evolution, namely the idea of ebtropy. Entropy is a measurement of randomness, and is used in biology in the fertilization of a embrio. In this, the two parent cells take part of there full genetic code and combine to make one unique code out of a virtually enless number of choices, seemingly randomly.

Your response is a wonderful example of what you've said. You take the full alphabet and combine it to make words, with random mutations occurring everywhere ("ebtropy", "embrio", "enless").

Why wouldn't God, being all-powerful, fix those errors?

Where are those transitional forms???
asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Im afraid i dont understand how you mean transitional forms, unless it is in relation to the question on where the intermediately sized cellular organisms are, which i responded to above.

Transitional from monkey to human. From fish to land animal. From land animal to dolphin.

[Athannihilate]

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Evolutionists don't believe we evolved from fish you retard.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/

Noah's flood and floods on Mars have nothing to do with each other.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Food chains were working properly, so animals survived.

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

Because we don't need them. Evolution states that animals change very slowly to suit needs of life.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

We became sophisticated and civilized enough to think, so people enjoy sexual intercourse and do it for more reasons than to have children. So people end up with pregnancies they don't want.

Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Many bodies are cremated, decayed, or broken down into fossil fuels.

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?

Evolutionists typically don't believe in angels and demons.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.

Evolution does not coincide with Christianity. How the hell did the serpent know English (Or whatever language it spoke)? Also, 'threw' is the past tense of 'throw'. You use 'through' for the definition you used it in.

Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me

It's not real. Simple as that. Also, wrong spelling of 'through'.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.

They die or get chopped down.

If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better

Humans have evolved to be sophisticated enough not to.

Why are there still monkey?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier

There were still dinosaurs after they evolved, but a meteor changed that.

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hundred years like the Dodo. Please account for this.

Where are you getting your facts from?

Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?
I would say the lack of fossils for these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.

Those are mythical creatures that never existed.

Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.

Evolution goes against the Bible.

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.

They evolved from a species that is probably extinct now.

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.

For the third time, evolution goes against the Bible.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09

That's not a question.

Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09

Unicorns never existed.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09

Single-cell organisms are microscopic.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09

Evolutionists are not always Darwinists.

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

What the hell are you talking about?

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Because the need is met with man-made clothing.

What was the "evolutionary advantage" of Adam's extra rib?
Why do women have an extra rib than men like the Bible tells us. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

For the fourth fricking time, evolution does not coincide with Christianity.

What is the evolutionary advantage of demonic possession
Please explain how demonic possesions humans, horses, dogs and pigs helps them to be a more successful species. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Evolutionists don't believe in demons.

Do you believe that Jesus was more primitive and less "fit" than today's slugs and worms?
Christ earthly ministery was 2,000 years ago, a more primitive time than now. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Jesus did not exist according to most evolutionists.

What did the rocks and lightning evolve from?
According to evolutionary theory, all life evolved out of rocks and lightning,Please show the evolutionary linage and transitional forums for rocks and lighting. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

They're not living organisms, so they don't evolve.

Please show the disorder inherent in evolution
Scientific "laws" regarding thermodynamics and entropy say that things go from ordered to disordered. ?]How do you explain evolution in light of this. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Where are those transitional forms???
asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Evolution happens very, very slowly.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

[Redeemed Papist]

If evolutionists don't believe we evolved from fish why do they say we evolved from fish?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Athannihilate

Evolution happens very, very slowly.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

Friend, this doesn't even make sense seeing how there has been only about 6000 years for this so-called "evolution" to have happened.

[Athannihilate]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

Friend, this doesn't even make sense seeing how there has been only about 6000 years for this so-called "evolution" to have happened.

Are you saying that humans only existed for 6000 years? There has been evidence of humans dating 150000 years back. And humans have not needed anything more than what we have, so we haven't evolved. Evolution happens on cue of a need and some time.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Athannihilate

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;[INDENT]
Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Evolutionists don't believe we evolved from fish you retard...

I'd be very careful throwing that word around, if I were you.

...Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Food chains were working properly, so animals survived...

Quod erat demonstratum.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Athannihilate

Are you saying that humans only existed for 6000 years? There has been evidence of humans dating 150000 years back. And humans have not needed anything more than what we have, so we haven't evolved. Evolution happens on cue of a need and some time.

The world didn't exist 150000 years back. Where would the people have lived? Are you a mormon that believes in Spirit Babies and stuff like that?

[Redeemed Papist]

Originally Posted by Athannihilate

Are you saying that humans only existed for 6000 years? There has been evidence of humans dating 150000 years back. And humans have not needed anything more than what we have, so we haven't evolved. Evolution happens on cue of a need and some time.

Not in the Bible, sonny. Which is straight from God as to how it happened.

Next you'll be telling us all those animals didn't fit on the Ark.

[Jack O'fagan]

Originally Posted by Redeemed Papist

Next you'll be telling us all those animals didn't fit on the Ark.

I never understand when atheists say things like this. If all of the animals couldn't have fitted on the ark then how come we still have all the animals?

YIC

Jack

[Godfly]

Why do humans need sleep? If evolution were true all animals would have evolved out of the need for sleep long ago.