by brotherdan 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
To show the impossibility of atheism.
It's virtually impossible for there NOT to be an intelligent designer.....BD
It`s impossible to prove the existance of God..It`s never been done..
Athiests VS Creationists..
2 groups of Crazies who can`t Prove a Thing..
And..
Will spend all day doing it..
....................... 
...OUTLAW
lol @ Outlaw. Too true ;)
Mad Sweeny, are you calling me a babe?
http://www.bible-archaeology.info/adam.htm
This greenstone cylinder seal (below) dates from about 2200-2100BC, and is from Mesopotamia. It shows a tree, two human figures and what seems to be two serpents, one on either side of the figures. The scene may be loosely related to the Old Testament story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, without actually depicting that scene.
The seal shows a seated woman opposite a seated man who may be a god. There is a date palm or a tree between them, and this and the snakes may symbolize fertility. The scene is common on seals from this period, and may relate to mythic stories or religious ceremonies of the period.
Biblical Origins in Ancient Egypt
http://home.austarnet.com.au/calum/egypt.html
Christian Mythology: Adam and Eve
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_adamandeve.html
Dan, are you familiar with the phrase "quote mining"?
Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Please get out your copy of Orign of Species and read the whole quote and see how Darwin was setting up a problem that he then went on to answer. Do you have a copy of "Origin" or any book by any biologist for that matter?
I agree with that. He also said ""Not one change of species into another is on record....we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Could we have a reference for this one please?
If evolution was supported by real facts, then we would HAVE to see transitional forms now and in the past. We don't. We don't see any evidence at all to support the idea that one species evolved into another species.
Of course we do, lots of them. You just haven't ever read any proper science have you?
If we attempt to cross breed species, what happens? If we cross a donkey with a female horse, we get a mule. That's it.
Why would you think evolution would expect otherwise?
Contrary to what mainstream science likes to claim, not all palaeontologists share the evolutionary view. Dr Etheridge who is a palaeontologist at the British Museum in London once wrote: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not one particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
For goodness sake when did anybody last use the phrase "transmutation of species"? Etheridge lived in the 19th century! That's just embarassing Dan.
Could we have a reference for this one please?
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
While I look that up why did you quote a 19th Century scientist as an authority on the credibility of evolution?
This thread is more entertainment than constructive discussion. Sorry BroDan...your manner and treatment of others only makes me realize I continue to want no part of "following christ".
That, and the evidence for evolution is fascinating and incredible to discover. Give it a try!
"Beware the man of one book" - St. Thoman Aquinas
Because many educated men have seen the nonsense of evolution. I've been quoting from Darwin (and yes I have read "Origin") and even he saw the difficulties of his own theory. Even he could not see "innumberable transitional forms". Obviously he saw the problems with his theory because he even entitled one of the chapters "Difficulties on the theory" In that chapter he said:
Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.
