Science in Adam and Eve?

A group for members of all religions, or no religion at all, to talk about religion

  1. parkurman123

    parkurman123 Fapstronaut

    You do not believe me ask evolutionists, who devoted their lives to find them:
    Even Charles Darwin said "as by Evolution theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" and "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" .Today after 150 years and millions of fossils later the proof still does not exist. famous dr. Colin Patterson of the British museum of natural history was asked why evolutionary transitions were not included in his book Patterson said "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.if I knew of any I would certainly have included them I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Karl Warner spent 17 years traveling to museums and dig sites around the globe, photographing thousands of original fossils and fossil layers were they were found. His research revealed a lack of evidence for evolution theory including no transitional fossils and clear evidence that shows animals remained the same over the supposed millions of years of evolution
  2. nice copy-pasta there buddy. I just showed you a list of "transitional fossils", you did not even look at them but went and copy pasted some bs not adding to the argument. So, where is this missing fossil that you are asking for? I just provided plenty.
  3. parkurman123

    parkurman123 Fapstronaut

    Listen, if they have found them it would be on the news. Everyone knows about the fossils you showed (it is not a secret) but there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. There are fossils that do not fit with a theory like the drepanosaurids which confused evolutionists and have no solid explanation. Even if they discover transitional fossils it would not help much, because they have to explain how the new information come to be.
  4. they wouldnt be news because that whole arguement for "transitional fossils" only comes from people who dont even understand evolution, that is only religious crazies. In the scientific community, evolution is an established fact, not only supported by archeology but also countless other fields, such as genetics.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2018
  5. We don't know if Adam actually lived that long for one and secondly science shows that it's not plausible. From what I've seen it's very possible that the Adam and Eve story was based off of preexisting Sumerian myth.
  6. yep. Bible totally stole the creation story from the babylonians while they were in exile there. Same thing goes to moses birth story, which was based off sargon
  7. I have several options with this thread:

    1) Report this thread for being posted in the off-topic section.
    2) Recommend a podcast I recently listened to.
    3) Quote St Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis

    Think I'll go for the latter.

    A non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

    Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

    If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
    (St Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, AD 415).

    Translation: Christians who bring science into the creation story make Christianity look stupid.

    The comments in this thread are proving his point. I don't really care for converting people because I think all shall be saved if they want to no matter what, but if you're someone who thinks people need to convert... Well, to quote Augustine you're being reckless and incompetent.

    It's amazing in AD 415, we had Christian leaders saying such wise and now in 2018, we have Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Why did we turn this wonderful work of literature into some sort of crazy dogmatic theological scientific rulebook? SMH
    Deleted Account likes this.
  8. Anyway, if anyone's interested here's Adam and Eve's rap battle that was left out of the Bible.

  9. Never underestimate humanity's stubbornness when it comes to avoiding the idea of a God who holds them responsible for their actions. It's much less threatening to one's way of life to simply tell yourself God doesn't exist and all of the intricacies of the universe just created themselves over time than it is to accept that their is an intelligent design to the earth and the universe that could only have possibly come from a creator.
    Deleted Account and Hros like this.
  10. yeah guys its all just a big conspiracy by the world's scientific community because theyre scared of jesus!
  11. Not what I said at all. And there are plenty of scientists who recognize the universe could not have created itself, because they are logical and understand that that would be impossible.
  12. No serious academic disputes the big bang, the age of the universe, or the fact of the evolution. Some prefer to think that the moment of singularity that lead into the big bang was caused by some greater being and they are welcome to that belief, as it is simply physically impossible to know what might have been before that moment of time. Anybody who believes in literal interpretation of bible creation story is not a scientist, they are a retard on the same level as the flat-earthers.
  13. This isnt about love and compassion and how and why God created what He did... it's about the fact that you absolutely cannot look around you at all the beautiful little tiny details of the world and the universe and honestly say that you believe it just happened on it's own without any plan or design. That's just completely illogical. I will never understand how anyone can believe all of this just happened without a creator. It makes no sense.
  14. A "big bang" sounds pretty dang similar to Genesis' account of God saying "let there be light" to me. And many people believe that a "day" to God doesnt necessarily mean 24 hours.

    We probably agree on a lot more than you might think, but you wont get to learn what people believe if you just come with closed eyes and ears, calling everybody retards. Hence the reason I have no interest in debating you.
  15. Dude, when someone says "you" they dont always mean YOU, specifically. I wasnt talking directly to you. And again, this conversation has nothing to do with compassion or whether or not God is loving. That's a completely different topic.
  16. I'm not interested in discussing that with you. I've tried to discuss things with you many times, and it has never gone anywhere. Sorry. There are plenty of other places you can seek answers to your questions.
  17. Why argue with people who's central tenant
    So if somebody told u the earth is flat, you would just respect that and not consider them an idiot? the word exists for a reason, like if that is not dumb then what possibly is?
    And also, what is the point in arguing with these creationists? Their concept of "faith" thats so important for them literally means believing something without evidence/despite evidence to the countrary. They by difinition will not change their mind even if the evidence is staring them in the face. They are far too indocrinated and afraid of "hell".
  18. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. You are equally as firm in your belief in evolution, which as much as you believe otherwise, is not a proven theory. So... why even come in here and try to have a conversation if it's so pointless to you?

    I think its utterly illogical and dumb to not believe in a Creator, but I'm still capable of not coming into atheist threads and calling everybody retards. So... seems like you could do the same, if you cared to be kind and have some tact.

    And all of this is exactly why I refuse to have these debates with you. I have learned exactly what you've admitted to here, that you have no interest in actually having a conversation and you think talking to someone like me is talking to "a brick wall," so why would I want to engage in a discussion with you? You're clearly only interested in proving you're right and I'm wrong. That's not a conversation I'm interested in having with anybody.
  19. it is a proven theory as well as an established fact. I have the unanimous stance of the entire scientific community and a mountain of research supporting my point, you have an ancient work of fiction. There is no comparison between our positions. But as I have said in my previous post, im done with wasting my time on uneducated fanatics.
  20. I am very well educated, thanks. And actually, I have a heck of a lot more than a book. I have the logical and undeniable fact that something cannot come from nothing. Especially something as intricately designed as human beings, animals, DNA, molecules, atoms, trees, clouds, vapor, etc etc.

Share This Page