BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Philosophy Serious Philosophy

The academic questions above Davey love. Your posts are just like being stood next to one of those crazy ranting guys you get in shopping malls screaming about sinners and the end being nigh. No offence, I love your work, but you're hardly in a position to criticize my posts are you matey? Chill out, calm down and paint a big smile on your face. There, that's better isn't it! I'm trying to send my love to you (it's true, I'm not lying). I'm full of it today, but you sound like you've already spent yours, you're not giving me your hard rod of love today. I guess you've been spreading yourself pretty thinly on the forum, so you're all worn out. But chin up babe, open yourself up and feel my love. Actually forget all this. So, what were we talking about? I remember, academic questions. Right, here they are again Davey as you obviously are too spent to scroll up the page:

Which of the following is the smallest part of a compound, whose properties are the same as those of the compound?

1. A Mixture
2. A Molecule
3. A Element
4. A Atom

If you reckon you know all about creation, then this one should be a doddle.

All right, Dave, explain why the fossil record puts our earth at a few billion years old but fundamentalists claim that it's only 6,000.

The fossil record doesn't go back a few billion years. Fossils are imprints in the geologic record that are from life forms. You meant to say, " hundreds of millions" of years. Big difference. The Bible says that a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. In other words, God exists outside of time. Fundamentalists say mankind has been around for only about 6,000 years. Many Christians concede that God may have taken much longer to create matter and lower life forms. Others say the earth was created in literally six 24 hour periods. No one really knows for sure. How can man be accurate in something before his presence was involved? Also, scientific dating is a very inexact science that depends heavily on other inexact sciences and so on... The dating could be very wrong. We used to think it took millions of years of heat and pressure to form carbon into diamonds. Now we can create them in laboratories. Obviously, we might be mistaken on the timelines for the natural process.

Boy did that not answer my question.

I apologize for mis-"speaking", I meant the Geologic record and science's current best estimates put the universe, and subsequently, our planet, at a few billion years.

Okay, so why is there a fossil record that show evolution, and not a clean-cut fossil record that shows that during one specific period, fish were created, and during another, birds and animals were created, and in another, people were created? Why is it gradiated if God created Man in one day (or in exactly one thousand years or whatever)?

Fossil records show micro-evolution. In other words, minor changes within one species. For example, differing breeds of dogs. This can be demonstrated in the lab. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, requires the proof of transitional fossils. Such as partially evolved species between birds and fishes, showing a gradual jump from one to another. There are none. All the hundreds of millions of fossils and exactly "0" transitional fossils have ever been found. Also irreducible complexity shoots the whole evolutional theory out of the water. Not to mention no evidence for the spontaneous generation of organic material from non organic material. No such evidence exists. Evolution is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the modern world.

Well, most evolutionary scientists consider all life forms to be transitional all the time. Evolution doesn't happen in fits and spurts, it's an ongoing process. It's also an erroneous assumption that creationists make that fossils would have the "transitional features" that you talk about. What are you looking for? Wing stumps? Not gonna happen. There have been "missing link" -type fossils found, though, which apparently creationists like to pretend don't exist, like Archaeopteryx, a feathered reptile.

With all the millions and millions of fossils found, we've still only uncovered what is, scientists estimate, about 1% of life forms (plants included, naturally) that have ever lived on this planet. We'll keep finding more, undoubtedly, and as we do, the evolutionary record will become clearer and clearer and creationism will become sillier and sillier.

Oh, and didja see this noteworthy piece of information? (Or is it just a hoax? I listed several reputable sources):

[url=BellaOnline ALERT: For anti-spam reasons, we restrict the number of URLs allowed in a given post. You have exceeded our maximum number of URLs.

We could go on forever just like the scientists do arguing about evolution. It is just a theory. The academic questions I thought you were going to ask were of the theological type. You threw down a theological gauntlet for me so, here I am to run through it. Ask away.

I think the terms "academic" and "theological" are mutually exclusive. And since you refuse to answer the question that I asked of you (what? too scared?), clearly you don't want to think, you just want to spout.

You know what would be funny? You know those automatic name generators that they have on websites? Someone should make an automatic theologic rhetoric spouter. And you could just sit there and argue with it all day long.

It wouldn't be that different than talking to someone like Texas Dave. So, Dave, I've said it before, but I'm really done with you now. I gave you a chance because you seemed like you were calming down and being rational, but you proved that you're not very good at it. Dave, why don't you go volunteer in your church's soup kitchen and leave the missionary work to people who aren't so detestable? You're just annoying and not that interesting. You're like that rat that was in my house that time. It ate the bread out of the breadbox, startled me in the middle of the night one time, but didn't convert me to being a cat-owner. And in the end, I killed it. With a brick and a frying pan.... a story I'll tell in completion one of these days, it's hilarious. Since you're not a rat, I'll spare you the whack on the head with the frying pan, but that's the most mercy you'll get from me from here on out.

"Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company" <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

'This is the root cause of the frustration that quickly comes if we make the mistake of bidding entry when the fundamentalist knocks on the door. We offer discourse in vain to those who are seized by a necessity. It's not just the repeated literal citation of the Bible as absolute truth ... or the repeated refrain that puts an end to all discussion ('well I believe the Bible and the Bible says'); or the inability to hear anything we say except as a sign that we've not yet grasped the truth that's galling. It's the recognition that despite the charitable demeanor, evangelical activity is based on a total lack of respect for the minds of those they are trying to convert.'

-- Walter A. Davis, 'Bible Says: The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism'

Megan,
You said you were more knowledgable than myself on Biblical things. That sounds theological to me. Now, hit me with your best shot ( other than a frying pan). You could tell me the story too. It sounds funny.