Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 70
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement



    I'm sure they do. They disagree so much with Christians even in the Old Testament. They
    don't believe their Messiah has come yet even though Christ came exactly the way OT scriptures
    say he would come and there are plenty of Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew and Greek
    that believe as I do. I also listed a link with 30 problems with the bang with scientific data and
    facts.
    I was talking about their interpretation of Genesis and the age of the universe. And they do agree wth some Christians, like me. Or more accurately, I agree with their view. They understand the Hebrew better than Christians that have some odd ideas in regard to this.\

    Trap, have you noticed the atheists have gone quite in regard to the Big Bang since I pointed out the absolute beginning they can not account for?

    I am not compromising.

    Let me ask you again, do you believe Genesis 1:1 teaches the universe had a beginning? Because that is all the Big Bang says.




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I was talking about their interpretation of Genesis and the age of the universe. And they do agree wth some Christians, like me. Or more accurately, I agree with their view. They understand the Hebrew better than Christians that have some odd ideas in regard to this.\


    Trap, have you noticed the atheists have gone quite in regard to the Big Bang since I pointed out the absolute beginning they can not account for?

    Yes sir, but that's true of all the threads, especially you know who.
    I'm still here. Like I said I'm learning from you but I've given scientific data and
    a great answer on the fall and answered your question on plant death. I thought I
    gave a great answer on the YOM statement. You may disagree but I'm still here.

    Let's face it bro, we're just gonna disagree because it's one of those mysteries we won't
    know for sure til we get up there and it won't matter then.



    I am not compromising.

    Ok, man. I agree.

    Let me ask you again, do you believe Genesis 1:1 teaches the universe had a beginning? Because that is all the Big Bang says.
    Not the universe but the earth first, then the rest according to my original link on the
    30 PROBs.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-27-2012 at 11:18 PM.




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    Not the universe but the earth first, then the rest according to my original link on the
    30 PROBs.
    How was the earth created before matter, time and space?

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do you think the heavens means?

    You are telling me to read somebody else's thoughts, which I have done many times. What are you thoughts? You need to do your own studying and not let somebody tell you what to think.

    The earth could not have been created before time and space as there was no matter which the earth is made from and no space and time for the earth to exist in.

    Again, have you noticed that the beginning of matter, time, space and energy is something atheists can not address?




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    How was the earth created before matter, time and space?

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do you think the heavens means?

    OK, that's right but the earth was w/o form.
    Genesis one says he created the earth and then said
    let there be light and then there were the sun and stars. The stars are light. The magi used followed the star to the baby Jesus.



    You are telling me to read somebody else's thoughts, which I have done many times. What are you thoughts? You need to do your own studying and not let somebody tell you what to think.

    I just posted a link as you always said to do. It
    gave 30 probs with scientific data. Nobody commented on them.


    The earth could not have been created before time and space as there was no matter which the earth is made from and no space and time for the earth to exist in.

    I agreed and said above that God needed something to put the earth and universe in and that was time. Spammy made a big stink about that but said nothing else after our explanations.

    Again, have you noticed that the beginning of matter, time, space and energy is something atheists can not address?

    Yea. I brought that point up on Sunspot last year and
    guys got bent out of shape saying time as just
    measurement but the earth was void and God needed
    to put it in something and that something was time. You're right. I have to do my own thinking but I
    need to read what others are saying, others that I
    respect.




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    I take no issue with you listening to others you respect, but any Chrisitan that rejects the Big Bang is usually a Chrisitan that is in fear of hihs beliefs being proved incorrect. I have no such fears. And I know the Big Bang is in incredible agreement with Genesis 1.

    Keep this in mind the Big Bang is not a story abuot how the universe came into existence (if you see this description ignore the take), it is a description of the early universe as far back as science can go. Science and the Big Bang only describe the results of the beginning of the universe, neither can tell anything about the cause, or Cause.

    http://www.reasons.org/articles/resp...d-the-big-bang
    The scientific content of Genesis and the Big Bang reflects scholarly integrity, as does that of Schroeder’s more recent books, The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God. In Genesis and the Big Bang Schroeder quotes from a number of Jewish theologians and philosophers of the middle ages and earlier to document that Bible scholars living about a thousand years ago recognized that the Tanakh (the Old Testament) taught the fundamentals of big bang cosmology. These fundamentals included the continuous expansion of the universe from an actual beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. As Schroeder points out, no one can claim that modern-day Christians and Jews are force-fit reading big bang cosmology into the biblical texts based on hind sight. Jewish theologians had discerned the big bang from the Old Testament more than seven hundred years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features. Consequently, the Bible is on record as having accurately predicted major future scientific discoveries about the universe.




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    In response to the 30 roblems with the Big Bang.

    (1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

    First off, the statc universe model is what Einstein and other atheists were looking for and why Einstien made his greatest blunder, an attempt to keep the universe static. A static universe makes no sense, are we to believe that it has always existed? If so, how far back does time go? Are these people proposing an infinite amount of time? If so, how do we get here from a backwards infinite?

    The Judeo Christian view is that the univese has a beginning.

    But most importantly, this is asserted but NO EVIDENCE IS OFFERED. The linked notes 2 and 3 in the assertion just reopen the same page.

    (2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

    Complete nonsense. The background radiation was predicted by the mathematics of the Big Bang as Einstein developed in his Theoiry of Relativity. It was predicted BEFORE it was found, a powerful indicator of the truth of his ideas.

    (3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

    This assertion cites Hoyle and once again our footnotes go nowhere. Hoyle was originally derisive of the Big Bang because of his objection to a beginning as the Bible noted. He later changed his mind and became a believer in the Big Bang.

    4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

    These "scientists" are not very well educated apparently. They mentioned the speed at which galaxies move and ignore the biggest part of the idea, THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING! The math clearly indicates that space is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light, which is why the universe and the objects within can be further apart than time would apparently allow. It isn't just that objects are moving, the very space they are in is expanding. Even sub-atmoic particles are moving away from each other, which means that even atoms will not exist in the future if the universe continues as it is.

    Just addressing a few more.

    (10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059 (that is 1 part in 10 to the 59th power - it is actually the 60th power). Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

    Indeed, the universe is HIGHLY fine-tuned. It is evidence of an intelligent and specific Designer and Creator. The notes speak of the expansion rate as well, which is incredibly fine-tuned (10 to the 120th), as well as dozens and dozens and dozens of other things.

    TRAP, YOU ARE REFERENCING AN ATHEIST'S WEBSITE TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE ABSOUTE BEGINNING AND DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE! LOL.

    These people claim it does not make testable predictions but this is nonsense. Background radiation was predicted before it was found, for example. The Theory of Relativity (of which the math points to a Big Bang) predicted that gravity could bend light and it was shown to be true.

    Trap, you are using evidence atheists use in debates with Christians.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268
    I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

    I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313
    My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

    I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313
    And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".




  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Of course Spammy would could it hog wash, but Spammy posted before I did on this subject. I wasn't in on the discussion yet. My beliefs are based on scripture, his are not. My Bible says as I told Greg, the earth was created in 6 days and God said let there be light. It's what the Bible says.



    I respected Greg's beliefs and said I learned from them but disagree that there's no room for science and God's own teaching of creation.




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".
    And that's all it is, a theory. Today's scientific theory is tomorrow's hog wash. I stated above that scientists have left the bang theory. Greg said they have not but I keep reading where they have.

    And Spammy's acceptance of Greg's position again shows where atheists are co-existing with Christians. Spammy likes Greg's position because it includes the bang so both the atheist and Christian appear in accord here.
    They seem to be co-existing. That is compromise.

    That's why I can't except the Bang. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Then there was light.

    Greg said above that the scientists I used didn't have much education, they were nonsense and don't listen to them. That's what atheists are telling me. I know the guy argued the 30 probs but he didn't do so hot. At least he
    listed the 30 problems. None of the atheists in here knew there were 30 probs.

    Hoyle is the one who coined the term "Big Bang" as a joke in an interview during the 50s I believe, and as more people begin to believe in it during the 1960s the name stuck. It gives the impression of a bang which wasn't the case.

    Greg is arguing for something an atheist dubbed as a joke and later believed in.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-02-2012 at 02:19 AM.




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?
    There is a difference between being anti-science and science illiterate.

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact. It is the theories of evolution that are disputable, not the idea of evolution. You comment on what you see as flaws in Darwins Theory of N.S. as proof against evolution. That is akin to saying you don't think the moon exists because you found out it doesn't consist of cheese. The moon still exists.

    Biological evolution is seen as a fact because of the simple equation of "genotype + environment = phenotype". This is learned in day 1 of and anthropology class. You don't even need to go back to the millions of years old fossil record of australopithicines and their similarities to modern man but you can look across the globe at modern man and see the effects of evolution.


    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.

    The environment has shaped these traits and while we might not know exactly how that is done, it is clear that the environment is responsible. Darwin thought that particular genetic errors or mutations proved to be more advantageous in specific environments and subsequently those traits were more likely to be passed. Lamarck thought particular traits conformed better to environmental demands and thuse were more likely to be passed on. Either way or neither way, traits evolved to better suit the demands of different environments and thus took on different attributes....skin color, physical size, hair consistency, lung capacity etc. How is it that Himalyan Sherpas can summit Everest year after year without supplemental oxygen while North American climbers are lucky to reach the summit once in a lifetime with only perfect conditions and oxygen tanks? Why do Ethiopian and Kenyan runners almost always win American marathons? Its not their modern training centers and supplements.

    This type of example is true for every species of organism that takes up residence in different and unique environments. You can't deny it.

    Anti-science people see this fact and either attack science as "eltitist", "liberal indoctrination" or some other appeal to the uneducated or they scurry through their bibles to find some passage that refers to god's hand having some play in it and twist and turn every ambiguous statement in that direction.

    Science illiterates attack some flaw in Darwin's thought and then deny all of evolution as a result. Darwin could be completley wrong and the fact of evolution would still stand. Evolution is bigger than Darwin; it isn't Darwin.








  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Of course Spammy would could it hog wash, but Spammy posted before I did on this subject. I wasn't in on the discussion yet. My beliefs are based on scripture, his are not. My Bible says as I told Greg, the earth was created in 6 days and God said let there be light. It's what the Bible says.
    If you are referring to me in the underlined I challenge you to find a point where I disagree with Scripture. Your ENGLISH translation, particularly the King James, has its own issues. Most English translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek directly to English. The King James was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, so it went through 2 translations.

    Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew way better than you or I believe the earth was created over 6 lengthy time frames, why is this an issue for you? Time has no meaning for a timeless God. That Jewish scholars disagree on Jesus isn't part of THIS discussion, Christians believe the same creation history as Jews. Jesus taught that the Jews had a very good understanding of the Scriptures, they just didn't live them out well.

    As for science and God, your view is ridiculous. If science discovers truths about the universe these are things God wants us to discover.

    And that's all it is, a theory. Today's scientific theory is tomorrow's hog wash. I stated above that scientists have left the bang theory. Greg said they have not but I keep reading where they have.
    Trap, do you have ANY understanding of the scientific method (developed by Christians like Newton, a STAUNCH believer)? Hypotheses are proposed, from them theroies are developed and these theories make predictions. The Big Bang thoery posited several predictions, many of them have been shown to be correct and some are still to be confirmed or denied. The main basis of the Big Bang theory is the Theory of Relativity, which has been proven to a greater degree than accepted laws like Newton's laws of motion.

    List a few scientists that take issue with the Big Bang and their published articles in peer reviewed journals for me. Meanwhile, I can show you many more that agree with it. The deniers, Trap, are either uneducated Christians or atheists.

    And Spammy's acceptance of Greg's position again shows where atheists are co-existing with Christians. Spammy likes Greg's position because it includes the bang so both the atheist and Christian appear in accord here.
    They seem to be co-existing. That is compromise.
    This is utter nonsense. Agreeing with an atheist is a compromise? Do you agree with atheists that 2 + 2 = 4?

    Spambot agrees there was a beginning to the universe. He does not agree on the cause.

    By the way, YOU ARE THE ONE LINKING TO AN ATHEIST WEBSITE IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG! Try removing that log sir, and you will then be in position to point out and help remove any specks I have.

    Do you disagree that the universe began to exist or DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERY FEW ATHEISTS THAT HOLD TO TO THE STEADY STATE IDEA?

    That's why I can't except the Bang. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Then there was light.
    No, it says 6 "yoms." And light came before the earth. Most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1:1 is a summarizing statement that says there was a beginnning and God created everything, then the rest of the chapter goes into a brief description of what he did. After space, time, matter and energy then came light. Light was FIRST of the created objects after the universe was established in which to place these creations. This is scientific as well. The early universe was pure light with no darkness until it had cooled to a point.

    Hoyle is the one who coined the term "Big Bang" as a joke in an interview during the 50s I believe, and as more people begin to believe in it during the 1960s the name stuck. It gives the impression of a bang which wasn't the case.
    Correct. It wasn't a "bang" but the name isn't the idea. It is just a name and you are correct, it is not a good desciprtion. It is simply the coming into existence of everything from nothing we would call natural.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html

    Take a few minutes and read that. ^

    Greg is arguing for something an atheist dubbed as a joke and later believed in.
    Do you still not understand WHY Hoyle did this initially? The idea of a Creator was abhorrent to the THEN atheist Hoyle. He understood what the Big Bang implied, that a Creator God began the universe. He accepted the Big Bang and went on to say, while becoming a believer in a Creator, that "a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Do you not understand how profound this was in converting this atheist into a believer of a Supreme Creator?
    Last edited by Greg; 03-02-2012 at 05:34 PM.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact.
    Because they have no choice. There are among Christians many who accept evolution in 3 main variants. There are some Christians like Trap that hold to a young universe and 6 24 hour periods of creation. Then there are several that believe in an old universe with many variants on the order of creation but believe God created various kinds that can change to a degree but not into new kinds. Canines are canines and nothing but canines can come from them being the idea (which is my position). Felines are felines, etc.

    Meanwhile, if your belief system is there is no Creator, you have NO CHOICE but to accept evolution. Any deviation would imply a Creator and as Richard Lewontin states:
    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
    This has nothing to do with science accept that scientists that are not believers refuse to allow God to be considered, DESPITE WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS! This is exactly what he says.

    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.
    Yes, this is what is taught, but it still is ASSUMING something, that mutations caused the changes. How about if humans had all of those traits in their DNA from the beginning and those that expressed this DNA survived better in areas where it was to their advantage? That is natural selection, right?

    This is shown in dog breeding, which atheists used to try to use as proof of evolution despite the obvious intelligent direction involved. When you purposely breed dogs in similar groups you are REMOVING their ability to express certain traits so that the desired ones are expressed. You are actually REMOVING from the DNA those traits, you do not ADD to it. There is no known method of adding to the DNA. Mutations simply are way too often negative and otherwise neutral until enough of them would accumulate to form something positive (no single mutation can produce even the simplest of new parts to a being, such as an opposable thumb - much less something like an eye or a circulatory system). Natural selection discards the parts that are harmful or neutral, or at least this is what is taught in evolution classes, but it makes no sense. It is a "just so" story.

    Science illiterates attack some flaw in Darwin's thought and then deny all of evolution as a result. Darwin could be completley wrong and the fact of evolution would still stand. Evolution is bigger than Darwin; it isn't Darwin.
    Great. So what alternative to Darwin is it you hold to? How do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

    Do you know that two evolutionists, Barrow and Tipler, list in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle there are 10 separate events that are in essence miracles. Check out this video from a Craig vs. Hitchens (may he rest in peace) debate.





  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,490

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Oh, and one more point to Trap, Adam was created on the 6th day. In that 6th day he also existed for some time without Eve and was then put to sleep, had a rib removed, and then Eve was created. I believe all of that. But let me ask you, Adam also named all of the various animals on the earth, do you think he could squeeze all of that into just 24 hours (assuming he did not sleep at all)? Or does it make more sense that the 6th day is more than 24 hours?

    And you never responded to my other question regarding how the first 3 days, or 24 hour periods, were measured if there was no sun, moon and stars until day 4?

    And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact. It is the theories of evolution that are disputable, not the idea of evolution. You comment on what you see as flaws in Darwins Theory of N.S. as proof against evolution. That is akin to saying you don't think the moon exists because you found out it doesn't consist of cheese. The moon still exists.
    I don't criticize natural selection. Natural selection is fact. Empirically proven, consistent fact. Evolution is not.

    Biological evolution is seen as a fact because of the simple equation of "genotype + environment = phenotype".
    Your doing exactly what I said in my previous post, equivocating the word evolution. Taking natural selection(genotype+environment =phenotype) calling it evolution, and using examples of it as if it has explained the formation of organisms and the complex functions therein.

    This is learned in day 1 of and anthropology class. You don't even need to go back to the millions of years old fossil record of australopithicines and their similarities to modern man but you can look across the globe at modern man and see the effects of evolution.
    The thing about the fossil record and evolution is, it's not only a matter of lacking preserved transitional ancestors. The main problem is it has preserved the exact opposite of what evolution suggests. The fossil record displays periods of sudden extinction, followed by stasis in species.

    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.
    The above is indisputable, it's called natural selection. Now how exactly, or since its fact, what exactly have we seen in the laboratory that suggests adaptations that only have influence within species are a model for how prokaryotes formed eukaryotes, or the formation of lungs or eyes?

    Its alleged vision slowly evolved through an adaptive process, driven by necessity to survive and reproduce. Since macromutations are rejected by science, micromutions are believed to be the creators behind new functions. But what necessary advantage in progeny would 10% of an eye include while in the early stages? Afterall when you Consider the amount of neural uniformity required for sight, 10% of an eye would not equate to 10% vision.


    This type of example is true for every species of organism that takes up residence in different and unique environments. You can't deny it.
    Again, I don't. And again, natural selection does not account for the sequence of events that allegedly turned non-livig chemicals into self-replicating organisms which eventually lead to the human mind.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-02-2012 at 10:08 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland