I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
Yeah, they have two nerve systems or something like that. At least turtles move slowly already!
Irrelevant again.
1. Again, coming from someone who believes in Evolution. Just because you say Evolution is true doesn't mean it is, and just because a canopy of water is unprobable doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Sort of like the alien thingy. An alien crashing is unprobable. However, that might have been the case, but we don't know that.
You do realize that whine a scientist uses the term "Improbable" in a situation like this they mean that there is a %0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000....1 chance of said occurrence? Having a water canopy above earth of significant size to be able to flood all the mountains, which would be much larger before such a significant amount of water eroded them, would mean that nothing, especially not a human living to be hundreds of years old, could live in. The sheer amount of water, which would be steam or ice in the atmosphere, would completely block out the sun killing everything on earth. That is just one example on how this pathetic hypothesis of yours fails.
2. Bull**** meter: 60/100 (copy and paste; note: you can change the numbers all you want)
Thank you. But you already fulled it up halfway, I told you to stay off of that link...
Just wanting to point this out: if we did not have a shred (or any number or shreds) of logic, we wouldn't be debating this.
This isn't a debate. This is me attempting to teach rationality to a mental gymnastic robot club.
Not everything larger is the same but bigger
But macro and microevelution are the same thing but bigger. WTF are you smoking? A better example would be microevelution being an inch, which we pass all the time, but you claiming it is impossible for that to add up to macroevelution, which is like a foot. If microevelution happens enough, then you have macroevelution.
Hmm... Apparently not, 'cause I still haven't caught on yet.
I can tell.
But you still admit there are some.
I will admit that it is possible that there are currently minor gaps of some obscure species. You do realize how hard fossils are to make, find, and then correctly classify? Paleontologists are finding new species every year. Such as science works.
Okay, found it. It was in the book "Life of Fred - Advanced Algebra". It was by Stanley F. Schmidt, who has a Ph.D.
From what I can find that person has a bachelors and two Ph.D.s in electrical engineering. Not exactly helpful when discussing biology. And what do giants have to do with anything anyways?
macroevolution is just a scale of evolution, it's not a separate theory. Also you use theory incorrectly as you imply it as meaning something lesser when in fact a theory is the highest thing you can have in science.
Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles. -- James Watson, _Molecular Biology of the Gene_, 4th edition by James D. Watson, Nancy H. Hopkins, Jeffrey W. Roberts, Joan Argetsinger Steitz, and Alan M. Weiner; Volume I, page 3, on the first page of Chapter 1: "The Mendelian View of the World.
Throwing shots are we? Name calling is not nice! As usual this is becoming a name throwing contest rather than a debate.
Didn't I already state this isn't a debate? You have not brought any logical, scientific, rational argument to the table yet, and until you do, this can't be considered a debate.
Retroviruses are one example of DNA evidence of evolution. We can find these retrogenes in the same place in humans as we can in our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Those who diverge prior to being infected by this retrovirus don't have these retrogenes. We can follow this pattern through the entire tree of life.
Didn't I already state this isn't a debate? You have not brought any logical, scientific, rational argument to the table yet, and until you do, this can't be considered a debate
Seriously? Because we have differing opinions doesn't mean mine is unscientific/logical/rational. I have stated how the gaps in the fossils disprove marcoevolution. Is that unlogical?
Throwing shots are we? Name calling is not nice! As usual this is becoming a name throwing contest rather than a debate.
ignorance; a state of being uninformed, lack of knowledge. This suites you well with the subject of science and evolution. This means I think you have the potential to learn, but haven't. I think you need to work on your critical thinking skills quite a bit, something that seems to often be stunted with religion.
Is wikipedia now a supported source?
Quite often it is. You can click on those little numbers next information provided and follow to where they got the information from.
