Celtic Heroes

Bible. Last Im gonna say to you.

Which one? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

Maybe a list of these tales you have faith in would help since there is no agreement what "bible" is even among Christians.

you morons, i GET IT that it is supposed to have taken millions of years. you say that EVENTUALLY it will happen. well lets say there is some snake that gets a brand new ability that it has poison in its fangs. imagine all the cells it would take and have it work PEFECTLY to make the poison, dont get me started with the bombardier beetle that has TWO special abilities that would have to have all the cells work PERFECTLY on BOTH ABILITIES. there is a difference between random mutations like a missing arm or leg and innovative skills. i am not asking you to come up with a theory for every situation but to answer it all cuz eventually your gonna find something that you cant explain. it IS NOT that it will eventually happen, it is that it would HAVE TO BE THE CASE if evolution did happen. Plus3, you said that there are unbelievable random things that happen in our universe, but what if they are not in fact random and are an intelligent designer purposely doing it to achieve whatever purpose? it IS NOT that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE TO BE THE CASE that all these unbelievable events are random if there is no creator. for about 80 years or so they have been zapping fruit flies with x-rays to see if they will evolve. they said it would speed the process up 150x since it is x-rays and that fruit flies have half as many genes as humans. just about the only thing that has happened besides a bunch of them dying is an "eyeless" one was born. it was carried on for 10 generations but with them breeding the eyes came back. now i might be wrong but this might suggest some auto correction and if this is true then evolution is impossible.

i will again adress this "evidence" http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

the fossil record IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. of course there have been changes in the animal kingdom, but that does not mean that they evolved lol. there is this things called extinction. right now it is more evidence in the reccord against it. now all these scientist come up with the EXCUSE that we have not found them all. again it is not that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE to be the case, but i would accept that we may not have found them all though.

you science morons, just because species have "similar" DNS DOES NOT MEAN that they have the same ancestors. of course some species are going to have some similar DNA.

the geographical distribution, it is not real evidence for evolution, it is one of those things that just would be the way it is either way.

you MORONS, well duh in blunt cases like a killer meant to kill bacteria except the immune kind natural selection is going to work, only rebels against everything would go against that. but explain to be how things like eyebrows, tails on dogs, why trees are a certain color, etc. etc. etc. apply to natural selection. keeping things out of your eyes may be a comfort thing and would not really be a better chance to survive, unless there is a worst-case scenario like you get irritated while you are fighting. the non evidence called INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT KINDS OF DOGS THEY WANT is beyond me how they are using that for evidence. show me more NATURAL changes in nature with evolution working the way they say it does.


now of course politics and opinion havnt hijacked all science, obviously. things like this are hijacked for a special purpose that i will not say.

our modern science cannot explain things today. watch this video. bear past the first mention of the flood and watch about 55 minutes of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FOsxvCOc4 i am sure that some of the things are fakes/frauds but if you are an atheist IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE that all are false. also explain to me how polystrate fossils occur. explain to me how we find human artifacts in coal that is supposed to be millions of years old. explain to me why they find human fossils that are dated to be millions of years old.

there a picture of a real, glaring t-rex supposedly, i dont know if it is just a pic from a movie that was turned black and white or what but he says that it was taken in 1947 and was hidden until just a little while ago. that might suggest that it is a fake but it might confirm that our modern science covers up things. it is on youtube but i have looked it up there and on the internet and there is nothing because those kinds of things are censored. if i find it then i will post it here.

there are far more pics that i have that i might use for evidence but all i would get is FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE which would have to be the case if evolution did occur. this isnt even all my evidence but i probly wont consider posting the rest with this wall named Plus3 here (now i know how Robert must have felt in the computer argument lol)

this part is an edit after i first posted this because i forgot to mention it.

oh yah, i have one other argument. i do not see how a single cell turned into two separate males and females. our own bodies are made of a-sexual cells, and each cell is living by itself, but all of them together make the male or female and can harness one whole different being. explain that to me.

you morons, i GET IT that it is supposed to have taken millions of years. you say that EVENTUALLY it will happen. well lets say there is some snake that gets a brand new ability that it has poison in its fangs. imagine all the cells it would take and have it work PEFECTLY to make the poison, dont get me started with the bombardier beetle that has TWO special abilities that would have to have all the cells work PERFECTLY on BOTH ABILITIES. there is a difference between random mutations like a missing arm or leg and innovative skills. i am not asking you to come up with a theory for every situation but to answer it all cuz eventually your gonna find something that you cant explain. it IS NOT that it will eventually happen, it is that it would HAVE TO BE THE CASE if evolution did happen. Plus3, you said that there are unbelievable random things that happen in our universe, but what if they are not in fact random and are an intelligent designer purposely doing it to achieve whatever purpose? it IS NOT that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE TO BE THE CASE that all these unbelievable events are random if there is no creator. for about 80 years or so they have been zapping fruit flies with x-rays to see if they will evolve. they said it would speed the process up 150x since it is x-rays and that fruit flies have half as many genes as humans. just about the only thing that has happened besides a bunch of them dying is an "eyeless" one was born. it was carried on for 10 generations but with them breeding the eyes came back. now i might be wrong but this might suggest some auto correction and if this is true then evolution is impossible.

i will again adress this "evidence" http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

the fossil record IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. of course there have been changes in the animal kingdom, but that does not mean that they evolved lol. there is this things called extinction. right now it is more evidence in the reccord against it. now all these scientist come up with the EXCUSE that we have not found them all. again it is not that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE to be the case, but i would accept that we may not have found them all though.

you science morons, just because species have "similar" DNS DOES NOT MEAN that they have the same ancestors. of course some species are going to have some similar DNA.

the geographical distribution, it is not real evidence for evolution, it is one of those things that just would be the way it is either way.

you MORONS, well duh in blunt cases like a killer meant to kill bacteria except the immune kind natural selection is going to work, only rebels against everything would go against that. but explain to be how things like eyebrows, tails on dogs, why trees are a certain color, etc. etc. etc. apply to natural selection. keeping things out of your eyes may be a comfort thing and would not really be a better chance to survive, unless there is a worst-case scenario like you get irritated while you are fighting. the non evidence called INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT KINDS OF DOGS THEY WANT is beyond me how they are using that for evidence. show me more NATURAL changes in nature with evolution working the way they say it does.


now of course politics and opinion havnt hijacked all science, obviously. things like this are hijacked for a special purpose that i will not say.

our modern science cannot explain things today. watch this video. bear past the first mention of the flood and watch about 55 minutes of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FOsxvCOc4 i am sure that some of the things are fakes/frauds but if you are an atheist IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE that all are false. also explain to me how polystrate fossils occur. explain to me how we find human artifacts in coal that is supposed to be millions of years old. explain to me why they find human fossils that are dated to be millions of years old.

there a picture of a real, glaring t-rex supposedly, i dont know if it is just a pic from a movie that was turned black and white or what but he says that it was taken in 1947 and was hidden until just a little while ago. that might suggest that it is a fake but it might confirm that our modern science covers up things. it is on youtube but i have looked it up there and on the internet and there is nothing because those kinds of things are censored. if i find it then i will post it here.

there are far more pics that i have that i might use for evidence but all i would get is FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE which would have to be the case if evolution did occur. this isnt even all my evidence but i probly wont consider posting the rest with this wall named Plus3 here (now i know how Robert must have felt in the computer argument lol)

Wow. I think 'you science morons' while posting to the Internet with a computer says it all. I'll look at the video (skim) and get back to u.

Let me pose this as a counter question, just put of curiosity.

If everything had to have been created, where did "God" come from?

"He always was" or "he just is" are not answers, if you truly believe that creation is the answer, then answer how creation was created

You ask for proof that God is eternal; well i ask for proof that the molecule is eternal.

Individual molecules are not eternal. That's the founding principle of chemistry. Even matter can be created and destroyed - that's how nuclear bombs work.

If you want some solid reasoning consider this - molecules - moreover all of the particles and forces in this reality can be represented extremely extremely if not exactly (statistically exactly) by mathematics and logic. This mathematics must have been in effect at the first instant of the Big Bang. How would an logical axiom like equal not be true in any reality or at any time? Is not 1=1 a timeless truth? Wouldn't that actually need to come before any rational awareness such as that of a god? Realities such as ours may simply be the expression of logical truth itself.

There is some thought that these mathematical and logical truths are what are eternal and the basis for all our reality. And we are experiencing this eternal truth that only appears to have time from an 'inside' perspective when in fact all time is an illusion - all possible events and realities occur simultaneously and eternally only having a fixed past and indeterminate future from a perspective within the framework.

Thus under that hypothesis there is no need for any creator.

It's nearly pure conjecture but just as valid a point of view as divine creation. In fact strike that - it seems slightly more plausible since it's a simpler explanation.

Im sorry i didnt post my question exactly right. What I meant to say is that you ask me to prove that God had no beginning; prove to me that the atom had no beginning. Which is something that evolution teaches if i remember correctly. Also i will be posting a very good argument in favor of creation in the near future. It may take a while as it will be moderately long and i dnt have much time nowadays. But it will come. Dnt worry lol. But in the mean time ponder this: prove that the atoms had no beginning; if God is not the creator then how did the atoms get there in the first place?

you morons, i GET IT that it is supposed to have taken millions of years. you say that EVENTUALLY it will happen. well lets say there is some snake that gets a brand new ability that it has poison in its fangs. imagine all the cells it would take and have it work PEFECTLY to make the poison, dont get me started with the bombardier beetle that has TWO special abilities that would have to have all the cells work PERFECTLY on BOTH ABILITIES. there is a difference between random mutations like a missing arm or leg and innovative skills. i am not asking you to come up with a theory for every situation but to answer it all cuz eventually your gonna find something that you cant explain. it IS NOT that it will eventually happen, it is that it would HAVE TO BE THE CASE if evolution did happen. Plus3, you said that there are unbelievable random things that happen in our universe, but what if they are not in fact random and are an intelligent designer purposely doing it to achieve whatever purpose? it IS NOT that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE TO BE THE CASE that all these unbelievable events are random if there is no creator. for about 80 years or so they have been zapping fruit flies with x-rays to see if they will evolve. they said it would speed the process up 150x since it is x-rays and that fruit flies have half as many genes as humans. just about the only thing that has happened besides a bunch of them dying is an "eyeless" one was born. it was carried on for 10 generations but with them breeding the eyes came back. now i might be wrong but this might suggest some auto correction and if this is true then evolution is impossible.

i will again adress this "evidence" http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

the fossil record IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. of course there have been changes in the animal kingdom, but that does not mean that they evolved lol. there is this things called extinction. right now it is more evidence in the reccord against it. now all these scientist come up with the EXCUSE that we have not found them all. again it is not that it is the case it is that it WOULD HAVE to be the case, but i would accept that we may not have found them all though.

you science morons, just because species have "similar" DNS DOES NOT MEAN that they have the same ancestors. of course some species are going to have some similar DNA.

the geographical distribution, it is not real evidence for evolution, it is one of those things that just would be the way it is either way.

you MORONS, well duh in blunt cases like a killer meant to kill bacteria except the immune kind natural selection is going to work, only rebels against everything would go against that. but explain to be how things like eyebrows, tails on dogs, why trees are a certain color, etc. etc. etc. apply to natural selection. keeping things out of your eyes may be a comfort thing and would not really be a better chance to survive, unless there is a worst-case scenario like you get irritated while you are fighting. the non evidence called INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT KINDS OF DOGS THEY WANT is beyond me how they are using that for evidence. show me more NATURAL changes in nature with evolution working the way they say it does.


now of course politics and opinion havnt hijacked all science, obviously. things like this are hijacked for a special purpose that i will not say.

our modern science cannot explain things today. watch this video. bear past the first mention of the flood and watch about 55 minutes of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FOsxvCOc4 i am sure that some of the things are fakes/frauds but if you are an atheist IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE that all are false. also explain to me how polystrate fossils occur. explain to me how we find human artifacts in coal that is supposed to be millions of years old. explain to me why they find human fossils that are dated to be millions of years old.

there a picture of a real, glaring t-rex supposedly, i dont know if it is just a pic from a movie that was turned black and white or what but he says that it was taken in 1947 and was hidden until just a little while ago. that might suggest that it is a fake but it might confirm that our modern science covers up things. it is on youtube but i have looked it up there and on the internet and there is nothing because those kinds of things are censored. if i find it then i will post it here.

there are far more pics that i have that i might use for evidence but all i would get is FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE which would have to be the case if evolution did occur. this isnt even all my evidence but i probly wont consider posting the rest with this wall named Plus3 here (now i know how Robert must have felt in the computer argument lol)

Wow. I think 'you science morons' while posting to the Internet with a computer says it all. I'll look at the video (skim) and get back to u.

i shouldnt say that politics and opinion has hijacked everything. obviously most scientists know what they are talking about as far as computers and such. it is just this that i am using the term 'science morons.' dont skim through the video, watch it all for about 55 minutes.

oh yah, i have one other argument. i do not see how a single cell turned into two separate males and femals. our own bodies are made of a-sexual cells, and each cell is living by itself, but all of them together make the male or female and can harness one whole different being. explain that to me.

Wow. I think 'you science morons' while posting to the Internet with a computer says it all. I'll look at the video (skim) and get back to u.

I don't understand what your point is with the computer argument. We are discussing the validity of evolution, computers were not made through evolution, they were made by intelligent human beings (intelligent design ).

@Rochoh
When you say "science morons" to whom are you referring? You can hardly call someone a moron for believing in evolution, they are just looking at evidence a certain way.

The reason there is even a debate like this is because science is very objective when it comes to past events, we have a massive amount of evidence but no real proof. It is like having a huge jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces are squares, they fit together in more than one way. An example of this is the similarity of DNA in different organsims. The fact that organisms are similar can be used to argue that it is evidence of a common ancestor, but at the same time you can just as easily argue that it points to a common designer. Science itself is objective, people are subjective.
To be quite technical, you can scientifically prove that every time you do A, B will happen. But you cannot "scientifically prove that you did A and B happened.

Im sorry i didnt post my question exactly right. What I meant to say is that you ask me to prove that God had no beginning; prove to me that the atom had no beginning. Which is something that evolution teaches if i remember correctly. Also i will be posting a very good argument in favor of creation in the near future. It may take a while as it will be moderately long and i dnt have much time nowadays. But it will come. Dnt worry lol. But in the mean time ponder this: prove that the atoms had no beginning; if God is not the creator then how did the atoms get there in the first place?

The same way god did

Wow. I think 'you science morons' while posting to the Internet with a computer says it all. I'll look at the video (skim) and get back to u.

I don't understand what your point is with the computer argument. We are discussing the validity of evolution, computers were not made through evolution, they were made by intelligent human beings (intelligent design ).

@Rochoh
When you say "science morons" to whom are you referring? You can hardly call someone a moron for believing in evolution, they are just looking at evidence a certain way.

The reason there is even a debate like this is because science is very objective when it comes to past events, we have a massive amount of evidence but no real proof. It is like having a huge jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces are squares, they fit together in more than one way. An example of this is the similarity of DNA in different organsims. The fact that organisms are similar can be used to argue that it is evidence of a common ancestor, but at the same time you can just as easily argue that it points to a common designer. Science itself is objective, people are subjective.
To be quite technical, you can scientifically prove that every time you do A, B will happen. But you cannot "scientifically prove that you did A and B happened.

I'm not referring to the ppl who take the evidence, I'm reffering to the big high up scientists. Yah some of it is about how u interpret the evidence but some of it is just rediculous. Guess I used it too much

Sorry, RedDogy, I did in fact mean you. I do not know why I said Robert. I guess I was tired and just thought of R names...

Anyways, thank you very much. At this point I still lean towards more physical evidence but there is certainly an increased possibility in religion, at least in my mind. After all, there are still billions and billions of unknowns which could very well be the result of a god or of some other process.


With that said (addressing the topic), beliefs in the unknown should not be treated as silly or completely false.

Edited for spelling and grammatical errors. :/
@Rochoh2000
I tried to read through that. I really did. I did extract some form of argument but there are many places where you lose me. The ideas seems to be diced up and I am not sure how to really respond when your grasp of certain theories are misconstrued. This is not an insult as theories are constantly changing and finer points have yet to established.

The first part regarding the changes in animals is where I believe you are trying to say that you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution? These are not just random terms, by the way. Microevolution is studying changes that occur within one species or a small group of organisms in response to the environment. Macroevolution is where the controversy begins as it refers to a major change through generations of organisms that may even reflect a change in taxonomy.

However, information about evolution is taught/shared in favour of macroevolution where the physical evidence of microevolution is is used to support the less physical evidence of macroevolution. Even so, I still believe in a higher possibility of evolution as a whole because it represents a conclusion that humans sought out, found, and continue to build upon.

Can you rephrase your argument against fossil evidence? I think you follow the idea of microevolution but I am not sure.

For what reason do you believe different species that have similar DNA are not a result of a common ancestor? The best one I heard was that we were all created from the same material of nothing/dust and, therefore, many things are expected to share similar structure, DNA, etc. Is this your idea or is it something else?

Can you rephrase your argument for geographical distribution? I have a feeling it is part of the theory I explained in the section above but I am not sure.


As for the arguments about what started the atom and eternal molecules... Well, both are not eternal and no one knows how they began just like no one knows how a god would have "began." Basing the majority of one's perception of two sides on a common uncertainty is not very logical. Honestly, if all I knew of religion and the "opposite" of religion was about the creation of universe, I would not choose any side because both can not really be backed up with evidence in the here and now.