Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Evil-ution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cotjones" data-source="post: 7668542" data-attributes="member: 573988"><p>Lol that link takes you back here.</p><p></p><p>No offence, but I believe you're trying to make the Bible fit. (Driving a square peg into a round hole)</p><p></p><p>Science and the Bible often don't agree. I'm not saying that that simple fact discredits either, but instead i'm saying that simple fact speaks to the nature of the two, and how they are disjoint. The Bible wasn't meant as a textbook in science and if you use it that way your conclusions come up wrong. Science wasn't meant as a religion and when you use it to explain the supernatural your conclusions become arbitrary to understanding.</p><p></p><p>The Bible is a useless argument against Evolution. Period.</p><p></p><p>The fact is Evolution is the best explanation by far. And almost every argument I've ever seen including all the arguments in the work you posted came from either a biased interpretation of data, or the inability to understand the argument or mechanism of evolution.</p><p></p><p>When we see that a Non-primate called a squirrel looks and acts similar to simple primates such as lemurs, then we find fossils of what appear to be squirrels with opposable thumbs. We make inferences.</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that the only way deer use their antlers is fight and kill one another? That's like saying god invented Guns.</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that over 99% of all species that ever existed were extinct before man had written his first word?</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that according to the Bible Light and Plants existed before the Sun, Moon, and Stars.</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that 1 in 700 births result in trisomy 21 (or down syndrome) where a child literally has an extra chromosome.</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that Raphanobrassica is an individual species formed by the hybridization of the radish and cabbage?</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that allopatric speciation has been observed in fly populations.</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that People who came from Africa were black, and from Asia had prominent epicanthic folds(a symptom of many genetic conditions).</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that fossils can be dated to 3.4 billion years ago?</p><p></p><p>How does the creationist explain that in phylogenic trees based on age, common traits can often be traced back to single species very clearly, and these individuals often appear very like another species. (IE. Squirrel with monkey thumbs, Reptiles who give live births, birds that have feathers but don't fly and look like dinosaurs, etc.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cotjones, post: 7668542, member: 573988"] Lol that link takes you back here. No offence, but I believe you're trying to make the Bible fit. (Driving a square peg into a round hole) Science and the Bible often don't agree. I'm not saying that that simple fact discredits either, but instead i'm saying that simple fact speaks to the nature of the two, and how they are disjoint. The Bible wasn't meant as a textbook in science and if you use it that way your conclusions come up wrong. Science wasn't meant as a religion and when you use it to explain the supernatural your conclusions become arbitrary to understanding. The Bible is a useless argument against Evolution. Period. The fact is Evolution is the best explanation by far. And almost every argument I've ever seen including all the arguments in the work you posted came from either a biased interpretation of data, or the inability to understand the argument or mechanism of evolution. When we see that a Non-primate called a squirrel looks and acts similar to simple primates such as lemurs, then we find fossils of what appear to be squirrels with opposable thumbs. We make inferences. How does the creationist explain that the only way deer use their antlers is fight and kill one another? That's like saying god invented Guns. How does the creationist explain that over 99% of all species that ever existed were extinct before man had written his first word? How does the creationist explain that according to the Bible Light and Plants existed before the Sun, Moon, and Stars. How does the creationist explain that 1 in 700 births result in trisomy 21 (or down syndrome) where a child literally has an extra chromosome. How does the creationist explain that Raphanobrassica is an individual species formed by the hybridization of the radish and cabbage? How does the creationist explain that allopatric speciation has been observed in fly populations. How does the creationist explain that People who came from Africa were black, and from Asia had prominent epicanthic folds(a symptom of many genetic conditions). How does the creationist explain that fossils can be dated to 3.4 billion years ago? How does the creationist explain that in phylogenic trees based on age, common traits can often be traced back to single species very clearly, and these individuals often appear very like another species. (IE. Squirrel with monkey thumbs, Reptiles who give live births, birds that have feathers but don't fly and look like dinosaurs, etc.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Evil-ution
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
