jonavolaii

Luke was not written in chronological order so there goes about half your theories. [*:2w064pwd]Count them for once, or learn to... [*:2w064pwd]Is it not true that the gospels have only partially told the tale? Just because it was not quoted does not mean it was never said. [*:2w064pwd]Actually if you look at the verses this writer conveiniently skipped, we see that he: Healed a lepard in the midst of the crowd following him, stayed at peters for a whole day, Traveled Galalee, Healed another lepard that came to him. [*:2w064pwd]It does not say in the first verse that Jesus and the centurion directly spoke, it says he came to him for help. [*:2w064pwd]The differnce in timeframe may have been so short that by the time the witness came the messenger may have already dispatched the message. Also see 1. [*:2w064pwd] [*:2w064pwd]The capture of John was not even written in John (They are two different people) so Johns account may have happend after the others. [*:2w064pwd]The mother asked for them, seeing the culture it is not a surprise she was not mentioned [*:2w064pwd]Yet again just because it does not mention the donkey in Mark does not mean it was not there [*:2w064pwd]Matthew wote the whole figtree event after it had completely finished, mark wrote it in the seperate pieces. [*:2w064pwd]See above, also, noting Jesus parables all had to do with agriculture, it was obvious that many were farmers, Matthew knew the fig tree had (relativly) astonishingly quickly withered, so he called it immediatly [*:2w064pwd]In matthew it talks of the elija that was to come, in jhon it talks of elija, being christ [*:2w064pwd]Note that these are two very different blood lines... As for mary, they may not have concerned themselves with the female line however, If she had the son of God given to her while she was still a virgin, that would cause a fuss woulden't it? Also, seeing that Luke writes more about women than anybody else, that would give a strong argument that it indeed was Mary. The reason why this writer says christians will lie about it is because he knows we have reasonable evidence against it. [*:2w064pwd]See number 1 [*:2w064pwd]See number 2 [*:2w064pwd]It does not say it was his FIRST sermon, it says it is the first sermon in that book (see number 2) [*:2w064pwd]John 2:23 "while he was in Jeruzalem..." (obviously this is not the same time) [*:2w064pwd]Cannaan was a large region of before abraham (although he did live in it) Cannaan Quote wikipedia "Etymology from "low" applied to the coast as the "lowlands" and by extension to the neighboring region" [*:2w064pwd]"A blind beggar" not "one blind beggar" [*:2w064pwd]Matthew 4:8 "again, the devil took him to a high mountain..." Besides, luke is not chronological [*:2w064pwd]He condemned praying in public for to show off, not praying in public sincerely [*:2w064pwd]See above [*:2w064pwd]Luke does not specify if a crowd was near [*:2w064pwd]Jewish days started at sundown, the 6th hour was in the middle of the night, the 3rd hour was in the evening, Of course the usual battering and brusing took place and by the time Jesus was ready to be crucified (which is later than the source claims that John claims) it would have been the 3rd hour [*:2w064pwd]Just because one took Jesus' side in the matter does not mean he didn't insult him. [*:2w064pwd]"For christ sent ME not to baptize but to preach the Gospel" [*:2w064pwd]Ehmmm... Luke 23:3-4 & 7 sais nothing about Judas... [*:2w064pwd]See number 2 [*:2w064pwd]At the beginning of the trip it was dark, on the way to the tomb it was just light [*:2w064pwd]Mark ends at chapter 16 =D> [*:2w064pwd]Same as 19 [*:2w064pwd]He said "recieve the holy spirit" not "you have recieved the holy spirit" [*:2w064pwd]It does not state that one happened before the other [*:2w064pwd]The vecinity of Bethany, not in Bethany [*:2w064pwd]So? Jesus states before that that all blasfemies are forgivable except... [*:2w064pwd]I Don't know, however Jesus was right about John. Mabey John thought he was being refferred to Elijah from the old testament? [*:2w064pwd]John says nothing about this. [*:2w064pwd]The voice (Jesus) spoke in aramic. Sauls servants did not understand aramic. [*:2w064pwd]Got me stumped. Never heard of this... I'll look into it... [*:2w064pwd]By Jewish law he had to die, By Roman law which ruled at the time, they were not allowed to kill anyone. [*:2w064pwd]At the time Jesus said this no man had gone into heaven, Abraham just hadden't died yet, where he went, who knows? [*:2w064pwd]"But I speak this by permission and not by commandment" so? He is allowed to do it. Even picasso was inspired although he did it himself (and it turned into a mess anyway #-o ) I even recognise some of the riddles from maths class in this thing! Anyway, this person must be sided against christianity (I mean come on! evilbible.com? thats proof he's out to get us) May I quote Revelation in case this person is listening? As for you, you have tryed to make me prove myself right while you have not shown a shred of evidence except what you think exists. If you say intermediates exist, give examples, if you think you have any evidence at all! Give examples. The problem is I am going to be asked to prove my points over and over and over again because you are working from the basic belief that God does not exist.

Whoaaaaaaaah! way too much reading matter! :lol: OK, I'm going to only do a few of these, I'll take your words for it on the sources :) Lets see here... What is most defenitly a lie.... Oh heres one! The earliest known copy of the new testament is at 50 AD. Jesus was born at 0. He grew to be 33 years old... that leaves only 20 years between Jesus' resurrection and the complete finishing of the bible. Yes they did share the word through the people but in many cases the bible states: Luke : "...therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most exelent Theophilius... Furthermore we see that when there is a deviation from the original gospel, strict actions are taken agaainst it. All of pauls letter begin like all letters of that time, and after that with praise of the church he was writing to. All but one. In Galations (not-so-strangley not very often read in churches today) Paul begins with "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the ways of Christ and are turning to a different gospel..." Later in that book he tells the astonishing story of how he opposed peter, the general leader of all christians of the time, to his face amongst a crowd because he was deveating from the truth. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." If even correcting the leader of the christians is not strict enough, what is? Don't you find it very lucky that the new amounts deposited are just enough for evolution? Sorry my bad :) If you even read your own source you would see that the flaws in the test that he is pointing out mean there would be even less helium than the earlier test indicates... This man is just trying to discredit humphrey, not his work... By:[*:1qa4qnte]Materials used[*:1qa4qnte]Letter size and form[*:1qa4qnte]Punctuation[*:1qa4qnte]Text divisions[*:1qa4qnte]Ornamentation[*:1qa4qnte]Ink color[*:1qa4qnte]The texture and color of parchement You are confusing macro evolution with micro evolution. Variations within kinds were made by God, however you have not been able to breed a complete new kind of animal have you? Can also be explained by creation, also, if the odds of them being alike are enough to prove evolution, woulden't the far greater odds against it be enough to dis-prove it? No wait I'm not going to go into that now, could you just make a list of these so-called proofs? Technically speaking, everyone who knew Jesus, or who was even alive at the same time he was, was already long-since dead by the time the Gospels were put together. Hell, the grandchildren of the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus were already dead. As I have explained above, BS Note that he 'forgets' to mention any one of these supposedly many flaws in the bible *sarcasm* Whut? c'mon, any factors that change the ouput are contaminating factors, you cannot change that... Let me refer you to dutchdreams source against helium where they propose that change in temperature would change output in helium which obviously means that the output in radioactive materials has changed. Erm, no. All that shows is that the bible was around then. Some parts of the bible will be fact, but so are some parts of the latest harry potter book. Actually, all but 14 verses (to clarify, verse means spoken sentance) were found in letters from and to different people. This means that of all but 14 verses the authenticity can be proven. uraniums radioactive decay turns it into lead, its a known fact. All radioactive substances turn into something when they decay, it just so happens that in this case it is lead (but anyway this is entirely beside the point so nvm) No, but your mothers and fathers DNA combined does give you 100%. The only thing is that your different characteristicks make that big a difference. I accept that... thats not the problem. the problem is that if all the world believed in God, you would probably say the same about creationism. Its not about majority (If it was evolution would have absolutly no foothold) Its about proof. Granted niether evolution nor creationism can be solidly proven, but I still believe there is scientific evidence that evolution is flawed. Then you haven't even approached good... Radiometric dating = false Relative dating follows a trend known as circular reasoning. It is not the highest form of logic. comming soon.. (ps, there are positivly identified human remains below dinosaur remains. Got to look through "bones of contemption" to find it again, gonna take a while) [*:1qa4qnte]Before death subject should hold more C14 than after death so it should show a negative reading if it was reliable[*:1qa4qnte]4 hour dead seal - 9000 years old tested (others comming) Sorces: Bones of contemption, New evidence that demands a verdict, The bible, generaly some of your own sources...

sorry for not being on for so long, its called sleep :lol: I can see that you find radiometric dating important, otherwise you would not be using it again and again while I have already pointed out the flaws in the theory. Mabey you like it because its one of the few scientific methods you know that you do not have to change the results because it really does support your theory, mabey you just think if you dazzle people with apparently important stuff they will think 'O yeah its big so it must be true'. Who knows? Anyway this is the last time I type it, from now on I will reply to radiometric dating as pure ignorance... The following flaws make radiometric dating insecure... Radiometric dating (eg C14) assumes that the amount of radioactive decay is constant. C14 gets pumped through the bodie until the animal dies and then it decays. By mesuring the amount of C14 left in the body you assume the age of the sample. [*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know how much C14 there was in the beginning, eating disorders, plants that specificly do not absorb C14, all make this amount uncertain.[*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know if there have been outside sources, C14 can be washed into or out of a corpse [*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know if the rate of decay has been constantNot only this but even a LIVE animal tested out to be dead for 3600 years... All radioactive dating methods have these simple but thwarting flaws... I do NOT need a source for this as you can see for yourselves that these flaws exist. You claim that there is 98% similarity with monkeys and humans... There isn't even that much similarity with you mother and father... they have about 93% of your DNA (no I cannot give you a source as every time I type it in I get the same evolutionist crap about humans and monkeys) Ehm... lol? I'm surprissed you would say that, the authenticity of litterature is defined by differences bettween current articles and older articles. By using this information combined with the fact that letters exist between first century persons which prove the bibles authenticity. Compared to the bible, all greek litterature pales. I'm not saying ancient greece did not exist, it did. Even the bible agrees with that :) Here are some thing which are more reliable than the 'radiological dating method' that give evidence for the earth and the universe being young. The moon. The amount of dust on the moon is not even enough to bother stating evolution to be true. Comets have a maximum life span of 10000 years and there has never been any oort cloud found. During the radioactive decay of eg. uranium, It turns into lead, although this is not a trustworthy dating method the side effect is... During the decay, helium comes free. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old oyu would not be able to light a cigarette without setting the entire atmosphere on fire. The helium cannot excape earths atmosfere, so the earth has an age of 10000-6000 years. Now, do not bother to write back if you are going to fart the radiological dating method all over this forum. I do not believe you are 'open minded' I believe you are religeous. If you were scientific you would go for creationism. Nieter of these theories can be proved however evidence suggests, as you no doubt didn't bother to even look at, that Evolution did not happen. I suppose if you had eternity on your hands, that it would be possible, but we did not have eternity, we had about 10000 years. Evolution may be possible, but it certainly did not happen here. Now I expect you to give me some evidence for evolution (I will not even bother with things I have given proof against) Also, I would like to know Your sources... We'll see...

You believe the Fossils are dated by the rock layer they are in and the rock layer is dated by the fossils in it so dont start with that :) Anyway, there is more proof the bible is true than that ancient greece existed, theres just so many up to date copies of it! Homerus has the most, 643 known copies, the bible has more than 25000 copies. There were over 500 eye witnesses that saw Jesus after he was resurrected. List of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Crist Born of the seed of woman Born of a virgin Son of God Seed of abraham Son of Isaac Son of Jacob Tribe of Judah Family line of Jesse House of david Born at Bethlehem Presented with gifts Herod kills children His pre-existence He shall be called Lord Shall be Immanuel (God is with us) Shall be a prophet Priest Judge King Special annointing of Holy Spirit His zeal for God Preceeded by messenger Ministry begin in Galilee Ministry of miracles Teacher of parables Was to enter the temple Was to enter Jeruzalem on a donkey 'Stone of Stumbling' to Jews 'Light' to gentiles Ressurection Ascension Seated at right hand of God These were fulfilled in one day Betrayed by a freind Sold for 30 pieces of silver Money to be thrown into God's house Price given for potters field Forsaken by his disciples Accused by false witnisses Silent before accusers Wounded and bruised Smitten and spit upon Mocked Fell under the cross Hands and feet pierced Crucified with thieves Made intercession for his persecuters Rejected by his own people Hated without cause Freinds stood afar off People shook their heads Stared upon Garments parted and lots cast To suffer thirst Gall and vinegar offered to him His forsaken cry Committed himself to God Bones not broken Heartbroken His side pierced Darkness over the land Buried in a rich mans tombIf this is not enough proof mabey some of the other nearly 300 prophecies made about him would be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud If you dont know one of evolutions most fundamental needed functions, you are in need of help... By the way, in this we also see that it is produced as if it exists although it has never been proven. As you can see above, there are nearly 300 prophecies on this thing alone. They can be verifyed as the dead see scrolls were made before Jesus came... Actually it does... You know I have seen people walk away from an argument in the middle of it just because a christian told them too... Dude, I'm writing this! Thats quite a lot more proof than there is of Jesus existence (though he did exist, there are only 2nd hand accounts. This is the original thing) ehm... lol? According to atheism and evolution, you have no reason to exist, so how could you claim that you do? If I were an evolution I would just say you dont exist and be done with it :) If you want complete truth on the bible, look up this book: "The new evidence that demands a verdict" by josh McDowel, he set out to prove that the bible was false and ended up a christian because of it :D

I doubt you have found a single logic flaw but your pride, face it theres nothing wrong with it except it says you're a sinner. Have you ever heard of the oort could? Its an evolutionist explanation of why there are still comets. Comets have a maximum lifespan of 10000 years and the evolutionists claim that an oort cloud spits them out. Onl problem is, unless it spits them out faster than light, the oort cloud does not exist. Also there is the dust from the moon. Only a couple of inces thin. The earths polarity would have been twice the size of a magnetic star only about 10500 years ago. I suppose the sun spat us out or something because its shrinking, only 1 million years ago it would have engulfed the planet.. Then you watch closeley, if you live to see it, read revelation and wait... just wait... It depends on what you want to hear... You my freind dont want to hear you are hopelessley lost so you believe the latter... Actually no, you haven't done miracles, there is no proof you even exist and besides, the bible profecides there would be people who would pretend to be God... Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for phalse profits. They come in sheeps clothing, but in-wardly they are ferocious wolves." It also makes a LARGE number of profecies as to who would be the messiah... You weren't born of a virgin in Israel were you? You cetainly wouldent blaspheme God almighty by claiming he doesn't exist would you? I certainly hope not...

Genesis Exodus and Leviticus please :D Just kiddin

No i mean, everywhere, films books tv internet, Everyone is told about evolution as if it is a simple fact, day in, day out... So eventually people believe that without knowing better. Anyway, I'm not sure why I am... I suppose I just read the bible and knew I was going to hell if i didn't do something... Of course for all you know you could die today! Mabey your computer screen explodes or something... Who knows when they will die... But back to the point, the topic starter was talking about why he thinks the bible is wrong. Well, it has been proven the bible has only a 2% difference from the original and has more copies earlier than all other antiquities... The only other question is whether the bible is true... Its been proven that (evolution aside for a moment) the universe is relativley young... Well, there have been references in the bible that have prophisied events that hve taken place after it was wrote (see video) The two towers, world wars, jews being persecuted, jetstream... In fact you all disagreeing with me is also there, only in a far wider sense... So it must be propheical... After that we must check the facts, the bible never contradicts itsself, never... Not one contradiction has been found to date... Also, the entire new testament (with the exception of 14 verses) can be proven by letters including the texts... It has been proven that there was a man named Jesus and that he was at least famous... Magicians agree, to pull off a trick with the act of a miracle, he would have needed a truckload of equipment per miracle... The bible itsself states numerous times that it is fact not fiction and does not have some mystic meaning...

Consious careful and thought out, as for brainwashing... could be! Yeah thats right, Neo-Gnostisism (belief Jesus is not enough to get you into heaven) makes a lot of churches stray. In fact, many pastors try to hypnotyse the crowd just to get them to listen. I do not promote this and I'm sure there are a lot of people who dont. Mabey they were trying to but mabey they weren't. Are you sure it was brainwashing? Brainwashing is saying a specific thing over and over. Like everyone saying we came from monkeys :) Sadly, chuches were i come from are pretty much all corrupt and neo-gnostic. I think its a lot the same in other places...

The point is you cannot make life with 3 amino acids of whcih the toxity is not yet known! Actually they said it was the same as in meteorites and meteorites have right amino acids. this means that whatever they had it would not create life. Also their conclusion is wrong because they claim that these are the building blocks of life...

Yes but now you are making an unscientific statement :) You could say that but you have now changed the subject from you... Have you been? I've seen the evidence, have you?

sorry, the second experiment was supposed to be video

Oh its scientific enough, the only problem is that their conclusion was wrong... You need 20 different amino acids to even make a single protein, also, who sais these are left handed amino acids?

Actually, I was reffering to the amino acid experiment... And all the experiment was making fun of was the way evolutionists made a skeleton out of a pigs tooth! Science actually benefits creationism, however as soon as people hear that someone does not believe in evolution, thier programming, brainwashing, because that is what it is, tells them that that person is not being scientific. On the contrary, they are not being scientific by manufacturing evidence...

But if he even failed while tampering with the events, and whith an impossible setting (see the video i posted) doesn't that make it somewhat impossible?

The amino acids created in that experiment Were toxic. Also, he pulled them out a trapdoor because the atmosphere did not work... Also, the end product had 80% tar.... Do you really think you came from tar? Tar is a problem for organic life...

This is what astonishes me... So much for science *Throws science book out of window*

proper sources, I have seen the bones of the so called missing links, and also, If this is true then the great flood has been proven, dinosaurs extinction has been explained, coal deposits have been explained, mass amounts of fossils have been explained, in fact, most of the events that are global are probably caused by the Great Flood. As for the canyon, make a small line in the sand to the sea and pour water down it, you will see that the water all goes to the line and digs it out as it were..

life cannot evolve into more complex forms, thats how it contradicts it. Also, as you claim water born life was made, how is it possible then that water dissolves amino acids, the very building blocks of life? Nebraska man was made from a pigs tooth... Doesn't that make you doubt evolution only a little bit? Their method was "Evolution must be true so this must be nebraska man" That is not science ladies and gentlemen, that is religeon.

The great canyon, could have been caused by A massive wave of water which the surrounding landscape agrees on with gigantic waves over the ground. Genesis 7:11 ... On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. At a certain temprature below 0 water becomes naturally magnetic. If there was a layer of ice being held by the magnetic fields of the time (which would have been far greater than they are now) which kept oxygen in and at a high pressure. If this barrier collapsed it would explain how "The floodgates of the heavens were opened" and it would explain how dinosaurs would have died from lack of oxygen after the flood. Also, the theory that a comet would have tilted the earths axes is nonsens. If a meteor so big it would only just not knock us into the sun hit the earth, gravitational changes and crust movement would cause this to only have a change of tilt by a maximum of 2 degrees. If you look at it, evolutionists claim to be for science, however when science starts to fail them, it becomes evident that they are not for science. They are for their religeon, which they have proved by neglecting science and manufacting evidence!

Actually the great canyon, rifts in the earths crust, extiction of dinosaurs, certain factors like the suns age all support creationism, I suggest you look at a video made by Wilder Smith. The documentorys name is origins. I cannot find it however I did find another one which I will post shortly... edit: Here is a film of his company i found http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

Thanks for keeping an open mind However, if there is no life on earth there is no fotosynthasys and so some of the needs for evolution to bypass the 2nd law are missing. I still believe that even if the earth relative to the universe may be open, the universe itsself is not. What is a reliable age? Ages for rocks are generally old but evolution agrees with this, thats why its called reliable. There are however many factors which change this and radioactive decay itsself is never at a complete constant decay. It all happens at random. The problem with R aminos is that if you have a chain of L in a cel, A singel R would kill them all. You must have a pure chain. On the other hand its backwards with DNA, that must be purly R, one L would kill it off. This means that although it may favor L in meteors, even if there was one R in the entire batch, it would die. When i look at evowiki i see lies, sorry to say it but I could go to court with it. In its "creationist claims" It generally gives non-provable information and lists it over and over again. It claims to be fighting creationism with science however, I do not see anything but so-called proof. Note that it does not have any place to complain about it :( Sadly, many people including I think the users of this forum have been taught there whole life that there is proof for evolution while many scientists will admit they cannot prove it. So it comes that when I say there is no authentic evidence for evolution, everyone thinks otherwise. But think about it, have you actually seen this evidence? Why do they call it a missing link? Its still missing! If you look deep into the 'evidence', what do you see? Ask a sientist for a list of intermediates then ask him/her if you could see reports for how it was made(found)..

Actually the 2nd law of thermo dynamics only ceases to comply when 1. There is an open system (the universe is by defenition a closed system) 2. There is an energy source 3. There is a means of gathering that energy 4. There is a means of changing that energy into usable energy (eg. fotosythasys) Now may I remind you of your own words "By quoting the 2nd law now only makes you look a fool but by only posting the first part it makes you out to be an supreme idiot." As for warrior, if you do not believe these to be proven facts you are an cabbage (lol?). Sorry for saying it but its true, they are fundamental facts of which some (2nd law of thermodynamics) is even more proven than gravity itsself/ Julian Huxley... Ring any bells? He is the one who: Also, if you dont believe that would even happen you have no chance of evolution itsself So does creation, have you ever thought of a common maker that built them all from a certain design? There have been NO intermediates found ANYWHERE on earth, some birds have been found with claws but hey, the ostrich has claws too, do you claim that to be an intermediate? As I have said before, radiometric dating is far from reliable. Also, layers are hardly ever found in the same order. Fossils of complicated life are generally found, just as low as non complicated life. Fossils of man have been found below fossils of dinosaurs. If you in any way interfere with 'evolution' you have contaminated your research. Natural selection combined with the fact that half developed organs are just a nuissance to an animal would kill it off quickly proving that natural selection combined with ireducable complexity is a blockage for evolution. The test in the laboratory which supposedly created amino acids was completely bogus. The amino acids where in an oxygen rich envirement so after they had been created the scientists pulled them out of a trap door. also these were a blend of right and left handed amino acids, you cannot claim that to be a possible cause of life...

Actually, you should tell that to the people that write school books, If you believe everything evolution books tell you is true then think again, all fossils found that apparently indicate a 'missing link' are either fabrikated or mismatched. Australopithicus - Extinct ape Skull XI, Nellie - Half of a skullcap with 3/4 of the skull made of clay Peking man - Campfire with remains from monkeys (probably food) and humans, the discoverer of these 'forgot' to admit that... Here you go, a list of fundamental PROVEN facts about the universe that contredict evolution. If you doubt or question these basic facts, you should give up trying to contradict me right now... [hide=2nd Law of Thermodynamics]Entrapy increases as order decreases completely wiping the very concept of evolution away[/hide][hide=Mathematical probablility]Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)[/hide][hide=Ireducable complexity]Even singel cellular organisms have ireducable complexity. Like the mouse trap, If any one piece is missing, the cel will not function properly.This combined with natural selection removes the possibility of an organism slowly evolving[/hide][hide=Information]Information itsself is not a material entity, If you erase a hard drive it weighs the same. Information is therefore proof that the universe is not mereley material as evolution claims.[/hide][hide=Pealeentological proof (The fossil record)]It is proven that although layers stack upon themselves they do this at different rates and shift all the time, there are only a handfull of places where evolutions tables actually work. Human remains have been found below Dinosaurs remains, in fact in a number of cases a mould was made with the footprints of a dinosaur and a man where one stepped in the others footprints.[/hide]I am used to quoting myself as many people use the same arguments over and over again so unless you have a new one, please don't start using old ones here. If you claim to be open minded and have read the above, you should already be convinced that evolution is not true, If you still believe it is, you cannot claim to be open minded. If you have specific questions or doubt evolution, go ahead and pm me (I will report spam and hate messages). And still, no-one has even tryed to give evidence for evolution... Do you still think you even have it?

Defender, Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods. Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods. All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god. Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist. Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists. When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group. Read me. [*:f1zokh9b]Lack of belief in God is not beleiving there is a God is believing there is no God [*:f1zokh9b]Sadly Neo-Gnostisism has taken over the church, if it had not all christians WOULD be biblical literalists. [*:f1zokh9b]Gnostisism is a belief that you need to do something to get into heaven aÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ist (ÃÆââ¬Å¾ÃâÃ

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life. Genesis 1 In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution. Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name (1) Yes there is. (2) No it hasn't. When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source? (1) If you believe there is proof in evolution please enlighten me and every evolutionist on the planet. The only proof evolution has is more people voting for it, if it had not been for manufactured evidence that is still being shown in schools today they would have been kicked when they first showed they're faces. (2)Yes it has, why else would 'scientists' have changed the name? (3)My sources are purly scientific, in fact some of my proofs againts evolution come from evolutionists that agree the only reason they believe in it is because they do not want to tolerate a God Heres one of the sources from evolutionists: Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000) *Evolutionist ads(as if its a good thing): Isn't it great what evolution has overcome?*