thank you rgb, my point exactly.

♥Pudding♥ wrote: "Yes,but Jenn,there are actually many explanations for that,not to mention the fact that Noah had God's help.Christianity is the oldest religion,Noah didn't have to road up the animals,God sent them..."

No, silly beanie. There aren't many explanations for that. In fact, if Noah loaded a species a minute onto his Wal-Mart sized ark, it would take him around nineteen years just to load them all. In order to flood to the top of Mount Everest from sea level in only forty days, it would have to rain five inches a minute on every square foot of the planet. But hey, arithmetic -- even inconvenient arithmetic, insane arithmetic -- isn't enough to make you disbelieve in the literal truth of Genesis. You'll just make up a dozen more explanations to explain the exceptions, and resort to "and then a miracle happened" any time something doesn't make sense. Such as all the animals, plants, fish, birds, insects, crustaceans, amphibians on the planet fitting into a Wal-Mart and staying there -- without air-conditioning, refrigeration (think of all the arctic species), without the ability to open a window to breathe through (you can drown standing up in a five inch a minute rain, and no wooden boat ever built could take a day of it) -- for forty days.

This is an example of a story that is absurd based on modern knowledge of the world, where we are still discovering new species that are distributed globally in ways that are impossible under the hypothesis that they were all mixed up together and liberated from a single point in the last few thousand years.

But don't let a little thing like common sense, or arithmetic, or evidence get in the way of your superstition. It makes you feel good and you think you understand it, while science makes your head hurt. So it must be right.

rgb

Chris wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Do I completely agree with everything on evolution? No, but I do see where micro-evolution and even macro-evolution can occur in certain species, etc"

Jennifer, as one of the few ..."

I can see that. It makes sense. Too bad all science can't makes sense! Math and Science don't like me. English and History,yes! Totally random side note there.

Melody,

How can you trust Answersingenesis.org? The person who created it and maintains it is not at all educated in science. He isn't educated in science but is attempting to answer scientific questions. He attempts to answer these scientific questions without using any science. In fact, he readily admits that the reason he doesn't believe in evolution is simply because he wants to believe the Bible is true. It has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with desire. Doesn't that bother you?

Sorry, but I can't take the website of a guy who has a saddled dinosaur at his museum seriously. Not one thing in that article is supported by science. How can you account for radiometric dating? This website was written by a Christian mind you -

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens....

How can you explain that the majority of the stars that we see on a nightly basis are further than 10,000 light years away?

How can you explain the evolution of 16,000 animals on the ark to the millions and millions of species today? A process that takes millions of years wrapped into a 10,000 year timeframe?

I don't believe that there have been 10s of millions of extinctions. I believe that this is a young earth - less than 10,000 years old. I do believe in a worldwide flood happening, about 4,300 years ago, which would have made huge changes in the climate and environment, therefore making it much more difficult to survive. "There are two main hypotheses in vogue today to account for these extinctions at the end of the Ice Age: (1) either they died because of the climate change, the overchill hypothesis, or (2) man killed most of the large animals in a great slaughter, the overkill hypothesis.5 The two sides in this conflict are at such odds that it is almost a war between them — a war of ideas." Quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

Melody wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "There's plenty of creationists (including me) that believe that God first created different kinds, like one type of cat only, etc., and then they evolved into many different types of cats and so on."

You are merely changing the story to fit into your comfort zone. Using your logic, what are the 10's of millions of extinctions that have taken place over history, god's failed experiments?

Jennifer wrote: "Do I completely agree with everything on evolution? No, but I do see where micro-evolution and even macro-evolution can occur in certain species, etc"

Jennifer, as one of the few Christian on this board somewhat open to the facts, you should realize that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It's a distinction created by creationists to confuse the issue. What you call macro is merely the evolutionary process over a long period of time.

exactly..that's part of my point.

Jennifer wrote: "I don't think you can complete dismiss evolution. It's not just about apes turning into men. Once you get further into college level sciences, or even reading things on your own you will find that ..."

There's plenty of creationists (including me) that believe that God first created different kinds, like one type of cat only, etc., and then they evolved into many different types of cats and so on.

By they way...totally different Jennifer here! :D

I don't think you can complete dismiss evolution. It's not just about apes turning into men. Once you get further into college level sciences, or even reading things on your own you will find that out. Do I completely agree with everything on evolution? No, but I do see where micro-evolution and even macro-evolution can occur in certain species, etc I just tend to agree with God creating man in his own image and then creating woman the way the bible says, who's to say if God did or didn't use evolution as the process for all of that? It's totally possible and that why you have christians who believe in evolution, some who are fifty fifty and some who are hardcore creationist Some people just don't think outside the box at times

And maybe not minotaurs, but how can you say that something similar like that did not happen when evolutionists claim that whales once had legs or something?

Isn't that the problem Jennifer? You say, "I don't believe in evolution," but have no idea what the claims of evolution are. How do you dismiss evolution when you have no clue what the theory is all about?

Even creationists agree that species have changed a lot - evolving is a word for it. Horses were 3-toed, there are fossils that prove it, for instance.

Jennifer wrote: "What I meant was fossil records that prove evolution, there are none. And maybe not minotaurs, but how can you say that something similar like that did not happen when evolutionists claim that whal..."

Saying that the fossil record does not prove Evolution is false. And, to be honest - With the discovery of DNA, we could take the fossil off the table and still prove that Evolution happened. Anyway, here you go - A breakdown of the transition from hoofed mammal to whale. It's a long article and will take a while to get through - I would suggest printing it out and reading it as time permits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whal...

What I meant was fossil records that prove evolution, there are none. And maybe not minotaurs, but how can you say that something similar like that did not happen when evolutionists claim that whales once had legs or something?

Jennifer wrote: "Note how atheists will even admit that absolutely no evidence of any animals that are halfway in between evolving."

As Nathan said, everything is a transitional form. It's like you want to see minotaurs - That's not how it works. If scientists were to say what a species will evolve into, it would be mere speculation. Speculation resides in religion, not science.

Note how atheists will even admit that absolutely no evidence of any animals that are halfway in between evolving.

Holy shit. Every single living organism that lives today is a transitional form. Every living organism that has ever lived was a transitional form. Your statement is simply false.

There is only one answer, and I have said this many times. Creation is only the answer.

Even if evolution were proven false (which isn't ever likely to happen), it wouldn't mean that creationism is true. It isn't an "either or" situation.

Your last statement is too stupid to even respond to. It shows you don't understand statistics or even how the freaking lottery works.

Note how atheists will even admit that absolutely no evidence of any animals that are halfway in between evolving.
After millions of years? No evidence? Hmm, how strange.
There is only one answer, and I have said this many times. Creation is only the answer. Just look around you, and you will see what a miracle the earth is!
There was also comparing the chance of evolution even making this earth to a lottery awhile ago (yeah I haven't been on here in a while). That although the chances of the earth and the life on it was almost impossible, there was still that one chance that it could happen. Well, a lottery and the creation of the earth cannot be compared, because a lottery has a definite winner, while according to evolution, we were created on accident, and so technically we were not even supposed to be made at all. There was no definite winner for evolution, so something must of had to go wrong in the process, but nothing did.

ok then

ya. *grabs it and lets go over edge of cliff* there.

ok, whatever. i thought you were dropping it?

not really actually. i mean i'd prefer not to be called delusional (who doesn't?) but if i am it doesn't offend me

your the one who seems to care

okay, let's not be tetnical...i'm just going to drop it, it didn't really ofend me so who cares?

well, actually calling someone a name is an opinion of them...

that's wasn't an opinion, that was callin somebody a name

exactly chris. and dapplenose, many people were invited to this group. i was, and i am not christian. so im posting my opinion, on the debate topic. watch who you invite, if you dont want other opinions on here.

☼☼☼Greek Vampire Pixie☼☼☼ wrote: "WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GUYS DEBATING ON THIS?!?!?!??!"

People - Read the title of this thread. Read the opening post and responses. If you have something to add to the conversation, then post it.

i don't see why people join christain groups just so they can debate on it. i mean, i supose if it was suposed to be a debating group...or if they were invited to it...
i know my group isn't a dabeting group

...

...............

but if he wants to call us delusional then fine. see if it offends me, it doesn't.

i wasn't talking about you.....

i'm not debating! i just asked him to please not call us delusional! that's it! then he starts trying to dabate on it! i wasn't really even trying to refer to belief.

WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GUYS DEBATING ON THIS?!?!?!??!

Dapplenose wrote: "i'm not trying to debate you, it's just that me and pudding don't be rude like that, so please don't say stuff like that to us"

As I said, it's not rude. If you are not mature enough or strong enough in your beliefs to have them questioned, then you have no business posting on an online public forum. The title of this thread is "Debating on Christianity." You are going to find opposing viewpoints here and most of them will be put very bluntly. Stick around with an open mind and you might learn a thing or two.

i'm not trying to debate you, it's just that me and pudding don't be rude like that, so please don't say stuff like that to us

Dapplenose wrote: "excuse me, but we don't call you delusional for your beliefs, that's kinda rude"

It's not rude, it's rational. It's not belief either, it's based on evidence and fact.

And Jennifer, assuming that Jesus even existed, it's not a coincidence that the proclaimed birthday is the same as Dionysus, Mithra, Attis, Horus, etc....

All I'm saying, is use your religion as a moral guide for the good that it teaches(At least in the NT). Once it starts to get used as a historical text and for explaining things that are proven to be wrong by the scientific method, things start to break apart. If you are going to believe in the story of Genesis - Then shouldn't you, for instance, follow Deuteronomy? Tons of gems in there. So Christians basically pick and choose what parts of it they want to believe and follow - A bit of a double standard, no? Things would be a lot better if the entire OT was just stricken from the record.

Just to interject something real quick...some scholars tend to agree that Jesus was born in the Spring Time, not December 25th. The reason why we celebrate on December 25th is because it corresponded with the winter solstice(yes, i know it's pagan) or Roman Festival. Christmas rituals happen before Jesus was born. It just so happens that the meaning of Christmas is different now for Christians, than when it originally was created. The Church decided to celebrate Jesus then...guess they thought it was a way to reach out to some "pagans" like some have suggested.

excuse me, but we don't call you delusional for your beliefs, that's kinda rude

♥Pudding♥ wrote: "And actually,I'm not sure where you are hearing this but even history classes will tell you Judaism was the first religion. "

Judaism is the first monotheistic religion. However, religious beliefs and practices predate it by thousands of years. Genesis is basically a retelling of a Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. Many stories in both the OT and NT can be found in myths that predate them by the same. The story of Jesus was largely plagiarized from other sources, including the virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, miracles, December 25th(Do you think it's coincidence this is right after the solstice?). Use religion for what you will, but if you truly believe that an all powerful sky-god created the universe, and everything in it - including man, in 6 days some 6,0000 years ago then you're delusional.

um,thatactually was not photoshopped because the person has become famous for that picture it has nothing to do with that

koe, do not ask about 2 girls 1 cup. thats disgusting!

.........
somebody else out that picture somewhere else and said the image was NOT photoshoped

Dapplenose you're not familiar with goatse.cx are you?

Goatse.cx was essentially a man using both his hands to pull his anus wide open. Your image is in fact a Photoshop tribute to that.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/god...

Got any 2 girls 1 cup miracles for us also?

thats ok, same here.

my apologies, i'm really not that good at debating,

Jenn{ AKA duncanator } wrote: "yes, thats what i said, then there grandchildren would be mutated because adam/eve's kids would had to have mated. pudding said they were not the only people, so then the story should have had all ..."

are you trying to prove mutation or what?
i think that the clildren, even if they were inbred, would have turned out how God wanted them to.
and I think that the story is God created Adam and Eve, and then the childeen were a result of birth. 2 different levels or creation in my opinion.

that last comment probably makes it sound like im insane, because when i put that message 41 was the last one up there, so i was responding to that.