Silly Evolutionists?

Question

Creation is the truth, but how those evolutionist love to tell us how to answer questions asked about evolution

Isn't it amazing how these evolutionist tell us to not open our Bible, don't go there for answers. They want to cut off the very source of truth. Everytime I ask a question to stir thinking about evolution vs creation, they tell us to keep the Bible out of it.

What is wrong with these people, do they really think we will cut off communication from the only reliable source of truth just to please them? Your thoughts, tell us what your experience has been with these so called evolutionist?

If the Bible is "not true" then why are you so against using it? I mean you use the fossil record, gill slits, evolution of giraffe etc. If you can use stuff that we have proven wrong then why are you so opposed to the Bible?

List for me the contradictions? Find one in the KJV, there are none that you can use because they're are none. and as far as the NIV that was written by the alexandrains who changed stuff. so use the KJV and the New Living Translation and I'll explain them if you can find them

Genesis 1:6-8 says there is water over the sky and the sky is holding it up. That's nonsense, and I bet you don't believe there is water over the sky, either. So why should I believe any of the rest of the creation account???

This is easily explained:

There was a canopy over the atmosphere, made of water, I personally believe the water was in the form of ice: Held in place by the earths magnetic field, then when God broke the canopy using a comet made of ice during the Flood, it would have sent some to the poles thus living the mammoths, like they were found, with food in their stomachs, And it also explains the craters on the moon and mars where we say there used to be water, it also explains the rings of ice around some planets. see creation does explain a lot more than you think

Where are the unicorns and dragons?

The dragons are dinosaurs, and it says that the unicorn was a form of wild ox, so why don't you actually read the Bible before you make up crap about it.

Why don't you like being called evolutionists? Do you not like being named after your religion?

You ask for contradictions in the bible. How about the big one. The two different stories of creation. Genesis 1 has one account and Genesis 2 has another account


Are you that ignorant? Genesis 1 tells of creation the whole account. Then Genesis 2 goes back and tells of how they were made:

Willingly Ignorant you are

Funaholic:The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.


Is it just me or does science state that it must be obseravable? Sorry I must be going crazy.

Answer 1

Preach on, brother! Preach on!

Answer 2

Where are the unicorns and dragons?

The bible speaks of unicorns and dragons.

If the bible is so truthful, then there must be unicorns and dragons.

That is why scientists do not accept the bible as a source of data. There are too many things in it that are definately wrong. That shows it to be too flawed to be a source of data.

You ask for contradictions in the bible. How about the big one. The two different stories of creation. Genesis 1 has one account and Genesis 2 has another account. They have a different sequence of events. That is a pretty big one. Also, study the history of the bible and how it was compiled. There were other creation stories that differed slightly from what is in the bible. The scholars of the time debated on whether to add them however they were not. The fact that they were debated indicated that they were good enough for the bible. All of this points to fact that the bible was written by man.

Also, you make a point of saying your King James Bible. How does that bible have any more relavence than any other bible? Where is your evidence that you have the correct version of the bible? For that matter, where is your evidence that you have chosen the correct god?


Your explanation of the water in the sky is brilliant.....for a 4 year old. You have no evidence to back up anything you are saying. You just toss it out there and hope that it patches up the hole in the bible. You will not even let your mind consider that a person who did not know about meteorology wrote this part of the bible as his explanation of where does rain come from. A person who did not understand how evaporation and condensation explain rain. This was a person who saw rain as something magic that came from the sky. This person made up a story to explain it. Of course, we now know that rain does not come from a tank in the sky.

You say I am wildly ingnorant. However, it does seem that you are the one that cannot read. Go and read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says that humans were made after the animals and that he made male and female at the same time. In Genesis 2 man was made first and that the animals were made second. Also, woman was created after man in Genesis 2. One version contradicts the other version.

For science to work with something, it must be measurable in some sort of way. Science has no proof of firmament. In fact, no scientist in the world will ever tell you that firmament ever existed. There is no proof that it did. There are no pieces of it left over and there is nothing to indicate it ever existed.

I can see that you are not willing to actually defend your views of the bible. So far you have either made up an explanation or tossed out insults.

Where in the bible does it say that a unicorn is a form of wild ox? For that matter, where in the bible does it say that a dragon is a dinosaur? If a dragon was a dinosaur, then what kind? Why are there not more kinds of dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? There are thousands of different types of dinosaurs. They would have been a major part of the world when they were alive. Why are they not mentioned in more detail in the bible. Dinosaurs would have had a major impact on the world of humans. First of all are the dinosaurs that eat meat. Humans would seen a major threat from these. Next up are the dinosaurs that the humans could eat. Some of the big boys would have been able to feed a village for a week. Next up are the dinosaurs that humans could have trained. Imagine getting a Brachiosaurus and getting it young enough to train. That would have had major implications of the work that humans had to do. If humans and dinosaurs existed together then the dinosaurs would have been a major part of human life. Major enough at least for dinosaurs to be included on the ark. Get some Brachiosaurus eggs and hatch them on board. That way when the flood is over mankind can start to rebuild the world. However, the bible only mentions beasts, leviathans, and different critters that people say are dinosaurs in just a few places. If the dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time then the bible should be full of references to dinosaurs.

Answer 3

Will you just stop this? If you really want answers, why don't you go to the Biology or Earth Sciences section? No one who accepts evolution would tell you not to read the Bible anymore. You are making that up. What they would say is that is not the best place to find scientific explanations for natural phenomena. You can certainly be a religions person who believes in God and also believe in the process of evolution. Jews do; Catholics do...only fundamentalist Christians do not.

Answer 4

I assume you mean atheists and not evolutionists. Most atheists wouldn't say for you to "not open your bible". In fact, I would guess that most would say open it more often and if you do, you'll find the truth for yourself. Either you'll continue to believe or you won't. The choice is yours just like it is for everyone else. The only thing I would add is that you shouldn't base your opinion ONLY on the bible. Knowledge is a good thing. Seek many sources of it.

Answer 5

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

You have not proven the fossil records false.

If you would rather trust a book thats thousands of years old than evidence, you're not very intelligent.

Answer 6

I believe the Bible is very scientific. Thousands of years ago, it wrote about the 'circle' or sphere of the earth. In Genesis it relates the exact way the earth came to be, the order of things, like first there was light etc. It has the best psychology we could hope for, wise and has so many layers, each time I read it, I uncover something new. I studied the Bible with archeologists and anthropologists, and all of them state that in time, everything that book says will be proved. How many times has the bible mentioned Kings and events that we took for myth, until some archeologist dug up proof of it? Religious leaders try to use the Bible as a money making device, thus steering people away from it and dismissing it for myth. But it surely is not.

Answer 7

Genesis 1:6-8 says there is water over the sky and the sky is holding it up. That's nonsense, and I bet you don't believe there is water over the sky, either. So why should I believe any of the rest of the creation account???

Answer 8

Firstly there is no such thing as an "evolutionist".Secondly the reason that the answers do not lie in the bible is because it is not true.
There is evidence of evolution all around you and evidence that goes backs hundreds of thousands of years.
There is not one shred of evidence that there was a creator.
Therefore if your only "proof" is the bible,I suggest you stop asking questions that try to disprove evolution

Answer 9

Of Course! Why didn't we all see it sooner! Yes, please! Use your book recorded hundreds of years after the supposed life and death of a Jewish teacher. It provides such compelling evidence against the obviously fallacious assumptions of "Science" with their facts, and other nonsense. I put my faith in the works of a bunch of men who took a good spiritualist movement, and made it into a dogmatic propaganda book, that they used to quell the populace, and subjugate women. Lets feed the evolutionists and "Gravatists" to the lions, and go burn us some witches while we're at it!

Answer 10

Well evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Note: scientists do not disprove god, Scientists do not consider god cos he / she / it cannot be measured or studied by scientists.

Answer 11

Because the Bible has no factual basis. It is no more a scientific source than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Lord of the Rings. Fossils are unquestionably real. You can't 'disprove' the fossil record any more than you can 'disprove' the existence of Europe.

Would you be against schoolchildren being taught that Middle-Earth exists and getting lessons in wizardry? If not, that's your question answered.