NASA Rover Finds Surprising Evidence for Mars' Watery Past

Bible based understanding is PURE faith .....

 

Nothing would exist if it evolved?...Ponder

 

Huh? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

OK. Nothing incomplete in itself can survive.

 

Why would it not be complete both before and after evolving? We have a moth that evolved to mimic the dirty environment of London which was complete before it evolved in color and is still complete after the change. What would be incomplete?

 

Now I really have to go over the fixed asset report from the accountant for the first quarter. I will come back to this later.

 

It first has to exist in a complete form in order to reproduce with full faculties designed for its survival.. Anything less from the git-go...no accurate reproduction happens, if at all and the species dies. But again it first has to exist in a complete form. Evolution doesn't take that into its thinking except in some abract irrational way....As in what came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken, of course.

 

How about simply saying: It adapted to it's surroundings? We are now finding extinct animals buried in ice that are thousands of years old. They couldn't adapt to change.

That should speak volumes as to why snakes who wanted to fly couldn't grow feathers. Your people do believe birds evolved from snakes, ya know.

 

There was so much wrong with your entire quote, but to save time I thought I would point out the most glaring innacurate, hypocritical and ignorant remarks...see below.

Duh...if nothing just appeared how can it just be 'created'? * snaps fingers* Viola! But then again, I suppose scientific discovery had nothing to do with the cotton gin, molecular fusion, bronze smelting, or polio vaccines. Look, chemistry is science...right? Take 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen and you just 'created' water through scientific discovery. Imagine that!

Science is a process, there is nothing to create.

Yet some dude set everything up in less than a week and then someone wrote a book about it. That about sum it up?


Here it is folks, plain and simple:


Those who do not accept evolution and the scientific process do not have the will or the mental capacity to grasp the theory as it is taught. Most, in fact, try to puch holes in the theory with silly little caveats. They refuse to accept a highly plausible scientific theory because it contradicts their belief system which is largely faith and fear based.

Those who do not accept religion as a basis for creation in our world do so through lack of probablity and reason. Simply stated they do not believe in it because it is generally unconvincing to them based on simple reason and common sense i.e., science.

 

But TRUE science supports creation. Unless you to can explain how it all began? Why don't you begin by explaining the necessary functions of our human body and if simply one part of it mal-functions, we have a problem often requring outside assistance to fix it.

 

Um, no. General evolutionary thought and recent fossil records states that birds may have very well evolved from particular dinosaurs (period, age I'd have to look up) that exhibited hollow bones, sparse feathery plumage, beginnings of webbed appendages and beak-like calcifications on their face. Yet these creatures still exhibited many attributes of a reptile as well.

There are some snakes who glide without the use of feathers, by the way.

Why is it those who reject evolution so vehemently seem to have the smallest grasp on the theory as it is taught? I guess the same could be said for those who reject religion though.

Everything that has come out of your keyboard has been totally misguided. It is no wonder you don't accept the theory. You don't understand it.

 

The sentence in blue made me :lol:. To answer your question though, I don't know why that is so hard... pride/rebellion maybe? :neutral:

 

this is so difficult to address. to question someone about their beliefs, maybe even by doing so get them to question themselves....as soon as a glimpse of a whiff of doubt hits their minds, the get defensive. offensive even. i'm not saying that this will happen here, or that you have ever done that. i'm just stating my experience...

but your whole post begins at a point which i believe to be incorrect. you believe that the the bible that you read today are verbatim from God. how is that possible? even if they were originally written by people who claimed that god spoke to them, isn't it already third-hand when they write it down? do you actually believe that someone followed jesus around (at least for the short years of his life that were supposedly recorded by the new testament) and wrote down his every word verbatim? do you not realize that none of the new testament was even written down until jesus had been dead for 50 years? so let's say your grandmother tells you a story about something that happened to her in high school. do you believe that every word she says is 100% accurate? could she have left a few things out, or embelleshed a time or two? then suppose she told you this story in one language, and then for 2000 years people interpreted and translated and retranslated and edited and interpreted.....do you think the events as recanted by someone 2000 years from now will be close to the story your grandmother told you? i don't see how it's possible. especially if changing your grandmother's story during one of those translations or interpretations might benefit someone who could really care less what you believe, and is more interested in the power that could be gained by having you blindly believe that whatever they told you was a quote from God was actually a quote from God.

you believe the bible is word for word true. why? what has convinced you? someone told you? someone who presented it in such a way that it won you over? what evidence is there that a single word in the bible is the word of god, or even the words of jesus who even you would agree lived on earth in a human form? men wrote the bible. no one knows what God's handwriting looks like.

the bible is fantastic. it teaches many, many, many, many wise things. however, i do not need the fear and the damnation and the intolerance and the killing to understand that. i do not need to spend precious time on believing in fairy tales, or in convincing others that they are not fairy tales but facts. i believe in "God", i just believe that people worship in different ways. but it's all the same higher power. i call it "God" so other people get the idea of what i'm referring to.

i don't need preachers or angry message board fundamentalist hypocrites or even Jesus himself to convince me that there is most definitely something much, much larger than me, or than any of us, or all of us...

life, earth, space, the universe...i don't know what drives it or what started it or how or why. i'm also big enough to admit it. to myself and everyone else. i'm not presumptive enough, not conceited enough to believe that i'm the one with the answer. nor do i give that power to any other individual. we're all humans. one is no better than the other generally speaking.

i see evidence every day that God exists. i have a child and i grow vegetables and i visit waterfalls...

i see eveidence every day that evolution exists. i see the birds eat the bugs and the snakes eat the rodents and the bees pollenating the plants and other specialty skills in nature...

what i don't see is tolerance. organized religion is intolerant. every one of them requires that you denounce all the rest as fodder...

open your mind

 

Well my remarks were based upon last years notions.

Indeed. I wonder why ALL snakes can't do the same thing?

Simply because as it is taught doesn't make sense to rational thinkers. Too much contrary evidence has to be dismissed out of hand simply because it is a pseudo-science that has no tolerance for thought outside itself. It's attempts to manipulate true science for its benefit has failed. They just aren't willing to admit it yet.

Yes, but usually not for the same reasons.

Not hardly. Your arguments are quite old and your evidence constantly changing. You must have a lot of faith to believe that stuff.

 

First, while the current reaches of science cannot explain the beginnings of life in the universe they CAN and HAVE provided conslusive evidence of the beginnings of life on earth. Our current scientific limitations only allow us to reach so far. The argument that something had to the universe still stands, but it gets pushed further back every day. What will you say when we do explain the universe through science? This day will eventually come.

There is no distinction between TRUE science and whatever else you called it. Science is science. I hate to do this, but:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

Yeah, So? This makes absolutely no sense. What would you call that outside assistance? Does it come in the form of modern medicine? Wouldn't that be scientific discovery? Without science, specifically internal medicine or anatomy, we would still believe the heart controlled our limbs and not know what a galbladder does.

 

Yes, I bumped my own quote. My feelings in this quote should go to show that my beliefs are strong. You cannot deny that some of what I said is true.

 

Again, further proof that you have no grasp on the evolutionary theory. Other snakes have not had the need to evolve to have this skill/adaptation because their environment does not require it. The ones that do have thrived in the treetops becuase their competition could not. Survival of the fittest and genetic mutation can go hand in hand as in this case.

Nope, just better proof than your book. In fact I have lots of them.

You talk in circles without saying anything like you're trying to be Confuscious or something.

You are truly blinded by your 'light' and while that might be admirable to some it is a little sad to me. As Dangerboy just said, open your mind.

 

Actually, since others do not believe in your religion many people deny ANY of it is true.

In fact, there was a time in history when Christianity did not exist. Civilizations existed well before this.

 

That is not a fact. Stop reporting it as such. In fact, it is a compilation of poorly arrived at, theories based on very much incomplete evidence.

For that you hope because you wish to disprove God. Ergo, this is not science at all....and don't hold your breath.

Pseudo science is what it is called...False science in what you speak.

But the laws mentioned are the very ones you ignore, hence, it pseudo-science.

I asked:

Why don't you begin by explaining the necessary functions of our human body and if simply one part of it mal-functions, we have a problem often requring outside assistance to fix it.

Anything outside itself....like a doctor.

Yes. However, that is not evolution. That is a fixing of the human body by true sceince. True science can only explain and learn from what is given it to examine. Speculating is what pseudo-science is all about. You are speculating when speaking of evolution.

 

For the love of ****ing christmas! :?