If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Exactly. The same goes for gravity, light, etc. It could all be an illusion provided for us by an omnipressent and all powerful god.

If you step off a roof, it could be some god, flinging you to the street below in a very precise and consistent manner.

 

Do you understand the difference between how long ago something happened and how long it took to happen? You were born many years ago, but I don't think you would claim that it took years for you to be born, right? Sediment has to be deposited before it can turn into rock. The two processes don't happen at the same time.

 

It's like people used to say about Sarah Palin.....she thinks "The Flintstones" is a documentary.



You've seen "Jurassic Park"....though the "raptors" in that were actually Utahraptors (not Velociraptors)....imagine a world filled with them, and all humans have are some spears and bows and arrows.

Between packs of them and the T-rexes and other carnivourous dinosaurs, we would have been rendered extinct in a dozen years.

 

A loaded question. These are verses straight out of the bible.
What is murder in God’s eyes? From the human perspective, murder is the physical act of taking another’s life. However, we also must consider that God defines murder as any thought or feeling of deep-seated hatred or malice against another person. In other words, it is more than just a physical act that constitutes murder to God, who tells us that “everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15 ESV).
http://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html

Malachi 1:2-3 declares, “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated,.......
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-Esau-love-hate.html

This is a legitimate question about the bible.

 

Wow... that is an interesting point that you make. Then where did the original rocks come from that composed the earth and where were they originally a mere sediment before becoming the rocks that made up the Earth?

 

At the end of your closing statement you forgot to add "and causing me to land safely on my feet."

 

You ask me what is my definition of animal kind then tell me I am wrong. How lame is that? That fits what I've written earlier.

 

I asked for your reference for the 9 million species. Are you planning to verify this.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>

 

I didn't ask you for Your definition of KInd; you stated it was equivalent to Family in taxonomy.

 

So then layers of rock dated by evolutionary geologists at ten's of millions of years old bury a tree. How?

 

That may have more to do with erosion than with evolution.

 

Once again you are all avoiding answering my question and redirecting the subject away from your impossible to prove dogma.

What scientific evidence is there to support the belief in evolution?

What one fact has been produced to definitely prove that:
a.) the whole universe began as an explosion of nothing?
b.) that all the chemical elements evolved from the hydrogen created from this explosion?
c.) that life was spontaneously generated from mud at the bottom of a watery pool?
d.) that any kind of animal ever evolved into another kind of animal.

 

Just on the "Feeding of the Cargo".....a fun bit of analysis of an article called "The Impossible Voyage of Noah"-



Feeding the animals.

This supernatural quiescence has a curious twist, however, for the Bible plainly informs us that Noah was to take food on the voyage for the animals (Genesis 6:21). Hibernators do awaken from time to time to eat, and apparently these supersleepers did so also. Why? If the Lord was going to perform such a substantial modification of natural physiology as this impossible hibernation involved, why not make the miracle complete and dispense with the storage space for the food and the inconvenience to the crew of the feedings?

This is especially pertinent when the magnitude of the task is examined .For the total number of creatures on the ark, if each one received but one feeding during the voyage, and if all eight of the crew worked sixteen hours per day at the chore, each animal would wind up with just 44.3 seconds of attention during the entire year-long period! Some would have their meal on the first day, while others waited until they were nearly starved.

The poor attendants would have to carry out their chores in the violently pitching vessel and in inky darkness (since lanterns could easily drop and start a fire). They would have to find the correct food and somehow locate the right cage in the mind-numbing maze. When they found it, they would have to arouse an animal that could sleep through the raging chaos; the food could not be left in the troughs for it would spoil or spill. Then it's back down the slippery corridor to the storage bins for the next meal&#8212;on a perfect schedule, without duplicated efforts or mistakes&#8212;all in less than a minute!

Unfortunately, many animals are not physiologically capable of surviving on an occasional meal, however large, and a meal once a year&#8212;or once a week&#8212;would mean death. Some birds eat continuously during daylight and suffer when taken to regions with short winter days (National Research Council, 1977, p. 2, and some fish browse constantly and are unable to utilize infrequently given foods (Wickins and Helm, p. 117). Rodents, cud chewers, and insectivores are others in the "continuous feeder" class (Gersh, p. 60). Thus it appears that the "hibernation model," cleverly concocted to relieve Noah of an unmanageable work load, is vitiated by the simple scriptural requirement of providing food for the voyage.


Special dietary needs.

There are many other problems associated with the feeding. The first concerns the carnivores: where did Noah get the huge quantities of fresh meat required by these animals? The creationist response is that God (miraculously) altered them so that they could thrive on a vegetarian diet during the voyage. Although some aver that the eating of meat never occurred anywhere until after the flood, Whitcomb and Morris discuss at length the change from herbivorous to carnivorous physiology, which they date to the Fall of Adam (pp. 461-464). Thus these animals were originally vegetarian, then became meat-eaters after the Fall, vegetarians again for the year of the flood, finally returning to their carnivorous ways afterwards. Three times the Lord magically changed the physiology and anatomy of a substantial proportion of the animal kingdom.

And if this is true of carnivorous mammals, it must also be so for insect-eating birds, amphibians, reptiles, for the multitudes that live on fresh fish and other aquatic creatures, and for arthropods which eat other invertebrates.

Were the slender, sticky tongues of tamanduas, pangolins, and other anteaters, so difficult to feed in zoos, altered to eat hay? Were vampire bats and mosquitos able to substitute tomato juice for fresh blood? Did the whales adapt to kelp instead of krill? And what of our ever-troublesome parasites? Were tapeworms and leeches content to spend a year sucking on an old log? God was remodeling digestive systems right and left!


http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark#Caring for the Cargo

 

Show us erosion around this tree and explain why the different layers are dated by your people as 10's of millions of years old.

I'll wait for an answer before going any further.

View attachment 32134

 

That has more to do with geology than evolution. How many Ice Ages have we had?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: INSULT/OFF TOPIC >>>

 

First, an animal kind is not a species. Second, how many of these species are bugs, worms, etc.? They did not need to be on the Ark.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT >>>

 

I believe that was prunepicker you are referring to...

 

Here is something to consider about a species adapted to the cold, but not warmer climates:

 

You've been informed multiple times now that the theory of evolution addresses the diversity and progression of life, not what started life or came before life.

There is no accepted scientific theory of how life started.

I've given you multiple well documented examples of evolution, including the creation of new species.

As for the "big bang", all radiation from outside earth (including light) is consistent with our universe having expanded from a "singularity" beginning about 14 billion years ago. There is no other model that reliably describes what we see.

 

Paul's Epistle to Titus 3:2

 

Neandertal man was first discovered in 1856 by workmen digging in a limestone cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. This specimen consisted of a fossilized skull cap, two femurs, two humeri and other bone fragments. The fossil bones were examined by an anatomist (professor Schaafhausen) who concluded they were human. At first, not much attention was given to these finds but, with the publication of Darwin&#8217;s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the search began for the imagined &#8220;ape-like ancestors&#8221; of man. William King, an Irish geologist, reexamined the fossil skull of Neandertal man and promptly declared that the &#8220;thoughts and desires which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a brute.&#8221; Clearly, anatomists are no match for geologists when it comes to discerning fossilized thoughts! Darwinians argued that Neandertal man was an ape-like creature, while many critical of Darwin (like the great anatomist Rudolph Virchow) argued that Neandertals were human in every respect, though some appeared to be suffering from rickets or arthritis.

Over 300 Neandertal specimens have now been found scattered throughout most of the world, including Belgium, China, Central and North Africa, Iraq, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Greece, north western Europe and the Middle East. This race of men was characterized by prominent eyebrow ridges (like modern Australian aborigines), low forehead, long narrow skull, a protruding upper jaw, and a strong lower jaw with a short chin. They were deep-chested, large-boned individuals with a powerful build. It should be emphasized, however, that none of these features fall outside the range of normal human anatomy. Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial capacity) of Neandertal man was actually larger than average for that of modern man, though this is rarely emphasized. Anthropologists have long attempted to correlate brain size with intelligence and some have even biased their measurements of cranial capacity in an apparent effort to down-grade the intelligence of &#8220;less favored&#8221; races, such as blacks and Indians (see The Mismeasure of Man by evolutionist Steven J. Gould, W.W. Norton & Company, 1981). There is, in fact, a broad range of variation in brain size among normal humans, but there is no known relationship between mere brain size and intelligence.- by Dr. David Menton

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

I ask a question and search for evidence and then after analyzing all of the data, I form a conclusion based on the evidence.

Religious believers already have all of the answers (based upon a fairytale), they pick the evidence that supports their pre-established beliefs and deny the evidence that opposes their answer.

This is a fundamental difference between Religion and Science. It is also why it is so hard to debate with Religious fanatics, because they constantly denying everything.

Another tactic is to distract form the main topic. This is usually done by selecting a tangent or insignificant detail to debate or change the subject to. This effectively starts a new debate, leaving the original main topic to be forgotten.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Do you still claim that Kind is equivalent to Family in Taxonomy? If so,

then,

this is our Kind:

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>


I keep asking the same question.

What scientific evidence is there to support the religious belief in evolution? What one fact has been produced to definitely prove that a.) the whole universe began as an explosion of nothing? b.) that all the chemical elements evolved from the hydrogen created from this explosion? c.) that life was spontaneously generated from mud at the bottom of a watery pool? d.) that a single celled organism decided one day to evolve into a turtle and the turtle later though it would be grand to evolve into a man?

Just one, irrefutable scientific evidence. Just one.

- - - Updated - - -

I 'll add the definition to my signature just for you.