Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Veronic

Was the first man a baby or an adult?

Recommended Posts

No, the reason your version of evolution isn't compatible with Christians is because The Bible says that God created man from dust. It says he created animals and all other wildlife separatly.
The Bible has many simplistic, non-scientific explanations for things. I've always taken it to mean that the shephards and nomads of biblical times would have shook their heads wonderingly if the Bible said "And the Lord God formed man of amino acids and other chemicals using metabolic homeostasis."

 

You know that taking a literal interpretation of the Bible has caused more division than anything else in the Christian faith. The animals may have been created on a different day than Man (the exact day being different between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), but they were supposedly also created form the ground. Is ground different than dust? Is dust better than ground? Are ribs better than dust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are ribs better than dust?

You don't know? What Chinese restaurants do YOU eat at?

 

*bleargh*

 

Maybe it's not really the "Christians" fault, maybe it's the Catholics that are really to blame for denying humanity it's right to achieve scientific progress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, pray tell, my friend, why it's called a croc and not a dino.

 

Because that's what it is, moron. 'Dinosaur' does not mean 'erect-walking lizard' or any other such nonsense you might think (once again, your painful ignorance shows). 'Dinosaur' technically refers to any animal of the archosaurian lineage with an anorbital fenestra (or arising from a lineage with one, in cases of secondary loss like pachycephalosaurs). 'Crocodile' technically refers to any animal with any of the *numerous* derived features unique to this group, all of whom *lack* the anorbital fenestra.

 

So limbs has precisely nothing to do with it. Any disagreement on your part is simply ignorance of what the *actual* terms mean.

 

Most likely doesn't cut it with stuff I say, and I don't think so with yours either, so that leaves our conjectures about equal, imo, since millions of other endotherms also survived.

 

Bullshit. I can cite many logical reasons *why* my hypothesis is likely. You cannot cite shit except a dusty old book full of errors. In addition, your 'hypothesis' (that all the erect-walking reptiles became crawlers at The Fall) is directly *proven* wrong by Ziphosuchia.

 

......And these lizzards too, not called dinosaurs either, are they? I'M being intellectually dishonest?

 

See above. For your definition, 'Lizard' is more properly 'Squamate', and the term is applicable based on skull architechture, specifically the lepidosaurian skull with it's kinetic joints and reduced mass (often with a streptostylic quadrate).

 

Learn what terms mean before you use them, kid.

 

.........And most of us creationists don't subscribe to a teensy submicroscopic bit of space, far, far tinnier than the proton of an atom, expanding to become the entire existing universe that we observe! Who's tale is most believable?

 

Strawman fallacy, abiogenesis and the big bang have precisely nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

 

Go back and reread, my friend. I cited pre-flood atmospheric conditions, et al which, to go into in depth, would require a new topic. Likely that's been discussed before here, but I don't know. At any rate you can find stuff on it on google.

 

We know atmospheric conditions of ancient earth, but since this 'Flood' never happened, there *are* no 'pre-flood' atmospheric conditions, and they would have precisely *zero* effect on any form of dating aside from carbon dating, which itself is used only for recent stuff. There are no atmospheric factors of any kind in, say, Uranium-Lead dating.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE, cut and paste documentation of my specific lie, Mokele. You can't and you know it!!

 

Gladly, here it is:

It's all based on theory with the credibility of dating methods in question by some scientists.

That's from page 4 of this thread, post number 75, if you care to look.

 

The above statement is simply a lie. You were called on it, and asked to prove otherwise. You failed to do so. Until you produce such proof as I requested, your label of 'Liar' fits.

 

If you don't like it, stop telling lies. Jesus would not be happy with you.

 

Put up or shut up, by documenting where you've sufficiently refuted any of my statements, my friend.

 

Read the thread. It's all there, both from me and others. The only way you can fail to recognize it is the persistent intellectual dishonesty you have made your trademark.

 

True science, imo, involves the possibility of much of which has yet to be discovered and understood. True scientists keep their minds open to every avenue of possible existence relative to their fields of study, do they not?

 

"There is such a thing as having a mind so open your brain falls out" - Richard Dawkins.

 

My point was that Mokele was, imo, erroneously using the croc thing to refute a previous statement of mine, which you also need to read in order to adequately respond to my post.

 

You stated that Dinosaurs were 'gone' because during The Fall, God cursed all reptiles to crawl on their bellies. You stated, and I quote: "Why should only the dinosaur reptiles exclusively die out, every last one,, leaving their cousins the belly crawling reptiles surviving, nearly all of them? Maybe there's another explanation, like they were the Biblical pre-cursed reptile serpents which were not belly crawlers, but were cursed of God to have their descendendents become belly crawlers?"

 

You erroneously stated that all dinosaurs died out (birds prove this wrong), you implied (in your paucity of knowledge) that only 'belly-crawlers' survived, and you never account for why only dinosaurs, and not the Ziphosuchids, were cursed.

 

Your ideas clearly are delusional. Seek professional psychiatric help.

 

I did not address whether the flood was proven, but that if there was a flood, conditions before it would have been different.

 

Why? And why could it not have been different in a way that doesn't affect carbon dating? Because you're simply *assuming*, without evidence, that it fits into your crumbling theory in a sad attempt to delay the inevitable collapse.

 

You and your friends need to challenge me with some more substantive arguments, don't you think?

 

Coming from you, that's nothing short of hilarious. It's like a Republican talking about helping the environment.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To save me reading all of this... material, will someone please tell me what any of this has to do with the topic before I go ahead and slap the whole thread down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To save me reading all of this... material, will someone please tell me what any of this has to do with the topic before I go ahead and slap the whole thread down.
The original topic was fairly easily answered and the OP didn't bother to stick around. The rest of the thread has "evolved" into a typical evo vs creo obfuscafest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.