What's wrong with life originating from organic molecules which themselves originated from chemical interactions? Sounds like you accept only as much science as you are willing to understand.
2. The idea man evolved within the system of nature simultaneously with all the other meat eating living creatures is even more crazy.
What do you mean by "simultaneously" in this context?
Why is it any more crazy than herbivores originating in the same geological eras as carnivores?
Why is this a problem?
Mankind has no natural defensive deterrent from an attack.
Ignorant, personal incredulity and assertion. Humans have their larger brains, conceptualisation, tool-making appendages, and social organisation.
Using your ridiculous argument chimps shouldn't exist either.
WE have no defence for extreme hot or cold... and wet or dry.All other animals have defence mechanisms; why?
Rubbish. Long before sophisticated technology humans had already spread to various geographical locations which spanned the extremes of heat, cold, dry and wet climates that you refer to. Once again humans were able to adapt because they were able to conceptualise answers to specific problems (making of tools, tools to make tools, clothing, crude housing, forms of transport like crude boats etc.) and turn those concepts into reality.
3. There is no confirmed proof in the fossil record of anything changing from one type to a new type.
Ignorance & personal incredulity once again. There are many tens of thousands of fossils representing thousands of individuals and well over 50 species of hominins in the evolutionary tree that leads to humanity. The fact that you choose to ignore this, or reject the information outright is YOUR problem.
(Lucy!! Come on!) NONE!
Do you even know that Lucy is one specimen out of 9 separate specimens that represent one species out of over 50 in the hominin evolutionary tree leading to humans? Nope, I guess that you didn't.
If everything originated from one life form we should have all types of fossils of differing types providing ample proof; WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING!
What are you babbling about? Who said that we originated from one lifeform?
4. The Bible does not age the Earth at <7K year old. That is derived from the lineage of Adam to Jesus CHrist; it does not include other blood lines. The time between Gen 1:1 & 1:2 could be google's of years, we don't know how old the universe is according to the Bible.
Glad to see you reject the ridiculous 6-10K age of the earth.
Why would you use the Bible to date the Earth (or the Universe) anyway?
5. The Bible makes it clear that mankind is not the only type of life forum God has created in heaven & on earth. Gen 1:28 "...and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and "REPLENISH" the earth..." God said "replenish " the earth. This explains all the fossils being found that are human like, but not a direct match to man of today. God created life before mankind on earth according to the Bible.
So Homo nenderthalensis, H. erectus, and the thirteen additional and distinct species that make up the human family tree are what? Apes? Shrews? Turkeys?
If all people of science would start by having the mindset of conforming their discoveries into Biblical Scripture instead of anything except the Bible (in most cases) we would have an entirely different outlook at origins.
They did once, and then religious scientists slowly began to discard first one biblical-imposed dogmatic fallacy after another until - hey presto - today we no longer believe in a 10k year old Earth, a global flood, the exodus, a vast Israelite Empire, or creation ex nihilo because of the contrary scientific and historical evidence from multiple disciplines.
Science is byias
Yes, science is biased towards good spelling and education. Deal with it.
...this in and of itself is demeaning and counterintuitive to the meaning of the word "science" from within it's very own roots.
You aren't making any sense....no wonder there.
Don't agree with anything or everything I said?
What makes you say that?
Please provide pier reviewed documented proof to the contrary.
Peer-reviewed is what I believe you mean.
Sure knock yourself out. I used google scholar to search for "human evolution" and here are the results - I have deliberately limited the search just to search for those references dealing with molecular evidence of human evolution:
Google Scholar Search - Human Evolution
You'll note that there are over 18,000 entries?
Of course you won't even read one of them so your challenge is bogus.
To date, no one has and no one will because unlike most people I reassured both sides of this issue. I examined the claims. A lot of people are being deceived.
Nope. You didn't.
You don't even know what evolution is, much less "...examined the claims". LOL.
Look at it this way. At the very least when it comes to the origins of life and the universe the answer science provides is "we don't have a clue".
Well we have a few hypothese. But even if we didn't, why is that a bad thing? At least it's honest. What this position doesn't do is immediately validate your supernatural assertions. You don't even have a hypothesis based on logic - just an ancient collection of cobbled together bronze-age stories which have been totally taken out of their original cultural context.
With that reality
Nothing that you've asserted even remotely approaches reality.
I don't understand why anti-God believers think they have anything to say.
Because they apply logic and critical thinking skills rather than parrot dogma. I care about what is true. You don't. Cogito ergo sum.
The bottom line, they don't know.
About some things yes. Science is provisional and does not claim absolute truth, unlike religion.
That's the absolute best you can get from Science today.
What you get from science are the advances that you are benefiting from today, from your computer, to your longer life span.
Dahhh, I don't know.
And that is the only true statement you've made.
« Back to index