jakee 1,648 #26 December 7, 2009 QuoteLike what? There was recently a new find that was supposed to change everything. How often has it changed? Could you maybe be any less specific? QuoteDarwin didn't propose evolution. His work was on natural selection. Evolution was derived and inferred from his work. Semantics, yes, but I'm just making a point. Your point is wrong. The idea of evolution existed before Darwin published 'Origin', his work was the first step in explaining how evolution worked. QuoteWhich one? The one's that you're currently jabbering about.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #27 December 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteLike what? There was recently a new find that was supposed to change everything. How often has it changed? Could you maybe be any less specific? Probably. QuoteQuoteDarwin didn't propose evolution. His work was on natural selection. Evolution was derived and inferred from his work. Semantics, yes, but I'm just making a point. Your point is wrong. The idea of evolution existed before Darwin published 'Origin', his work was the first step in explaining how evolution worked. Actually that still makes the point I was getting at. Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution. QuoteQuoteWhich one? The one's that you're currently jabbering about. The science regarding origin? More than some. Less than others. I didn't get my doctorate in the subject if that's what you're getting at. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,648 #28 December 7, 2009 QuoteProbably. How about more specific? This new find that will change everything about evolution - watcha talkin' about? QuoteActually that still makes the point I was getting at. Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution. But it was about evolution. QuoteThe science regarding origin? More than some. Less than others. Anything that wasn't filtered through AIG first?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #29 December 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteCritics often bring up this verse as an attack on the validity of the Bible. But, does the Bible teach that it is okay to kill children? The answer, of course, is no it doesn't. But we must ask what the Psalmist was saying and what he was saying it. There are plenty of examles where God permits the killing of innocent children in the bible. In exodus he kills all first born as revenge for the Jews not being set free. The children of Jericho are also slaughtered. The 42 children who mocked Elisha were tore apart by 2 bears on command by God for teasing him about being bald. I think if children at an early age were taught some of these bible verses they might grow up with a different take on God. Then again I think children are taught to fear God and and his wrath. The idea that you can pick and choose the Psalms that Got agrees with is just a bit silly. There are also thousands of verses teaching love, understanding, and hope. The idea that you can choose one Psalm, out of context, and discredit the religion is more than a bit silly. So the bible doesn't really express the will of "god" at all. Just the bits that believers cherry pick. Even the most avid non-believer could tell the difference between a story being told by a person of their own wishes and the direct will of God. Every story in the Bible is not the will of God or his instruction. This Psalm is an example. A perfect example of cherry picking.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #30 December 7, 2009 >There was recently a new find that was supposed to >change everything. How often has it changed? ?? If you mean the sloth skull discovery near Beaumont, it didn't "change everything." It just gave us one more data point; that skull was around 1.8 million years old. It apparently really bothers the creationists: ===================== Creationists who believe Earth is only about 10,000 years old balk at talk about the fossil's age. Among them is Frank Sherwin, a writer and speaker with the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research. Sherwin, who holds a master's in zoology from the University of Northern Colorado, said that while such findings are exciting, claims about the ancient date of the skull should be met with skepticism. "The fossil record doesn't document these alleged millions and millions of years the evolutionists talk about," Sherwin said. ===================== >Darwin didn't propose evolution. His work was on natural selection. Right. He was the first to demonstrate how evolution was the result of natural selection, and was not an innate, deterministic process (like Lamarckism.) >My issue with "believing" in science is that it's always changing. No, science doesn't change, just our understanding of it. Nuclear fusion works exactly the same today as it did four billion years ago. We just understand it better. >What was true yesterday isn't true today and will be different again >tomorrow. What was true today will be true tomorrow. We may understand it better though. >Like the Big Bang theory? Yep. >Like human evolution from single celled organisms? Yep. And there is some pretty extraordinary proof of that. >Even the seemingly concrete idea of gravity could change with string theory. You're not going to wake up tomorrow and find yourself floating, don't worry. Gravity won't change. >There is no pure, hard evidence that God exists or that creation is >the answer. Agreed. >There is also no hard evidence the Earth just appeared from a big >bang and we came from swamp matter. Actually, there is. The two are nothing like each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
