Perfection
The Great Head.
Who are you invoking it upon?I will also invoke rule #3.
Just because Darwin said it does not mean its true.
Who are you invoking it upon?I will also invoke rule #3.
Just because Darwin said it does not mean its true.
So I'm invoking rule 3 of this thread:
So, I guess the thing that needs to be questioned here for Domination is what scientific justification is there for believing the biblical account of creation?
Don't apologize! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion that I think you folks should have. I just would like it moved to a different location.I do apologize for adding fuel to the fire in that regard, but I'd like to read Dom's response to my post via PM if he has one.
How can it be "scientifically accurate" when you reject the part of science that contradict it ?Yeah, I get that. And I don't reject science, I reject the parts that disagree with a book that has been around for thousands of years, has always been correct, and is scientifically accurate.
Yeah, I get that. And I don't reject science, I reject the parts that disagree with a book that has been around for thousands of years, has always been correct, and is scientifically accurate.
One good thing about the Bible not being a science book is that it is not continually being updated and being found out of date, like many scientific theories in the past.
The greatest evidence against Evolution is the fact that we do not see the amount of information adding mutations, if any that are required for this gradual process over millions of years and more we learn about you genome, the harder it is getting for us to have evolved from apes to humans, let alone the first step from bacteria, since the gap between us growing after every new study on that area and we are finding more areas of our genome being as functional, rather than just useless junk.
It's just being re-interpreted at will.One good thing about the Bible not being a science book is that it is not continually being updated and being found out of date, like many scientific theories in the past.
One good thing about the Bible not being a science book is that it is not continually being updated and being found out of date, like many scientific theories in the past.
The greatest evidence against Evolution is the fact that we do not see the amount of information adding mutations, if any that are required for this gradual process over millions of years and more we learn about you genome, the harder it is getting for us to have evolved from apes to humans, let alone the first step from bacteria, since the gap between us growing after every new study on that area and we are finding more areas of our genome being as functional, rather than just useless junk.
One thing that might be considered is a pulse of energy through consciousness that is universal. This is consistent with the evidence at least.
That is a misunderstanding of the paleontology. The evidence is that these changes are abrupt. But Abrupt relative to geological processes. These changes still occur on the orders of many many thousands of years. In geological time, 100,000 years is nearly the blink of an eye.The paleontology evidence is clear. It demonstrates not slow gradual changes but sudden and abrupt, as if out of the thin air.
One thing that might be considered is a pulse of energy through consciousness that is universal.
Because religions don't make progress?One good thing about the Bible not being a science book is that it is not continually being updated and being found out of date, like many scientific theories in the past.
So you claim to know how much mutation is required for evolution to be true, please tell us, and tell us your source too.The greatest evidence against Evolution is the fact that we do not see the amount of information adding mutations, if any that are required for this gradual process over millions of years