Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I didn't Go back and look at my question again. You sort of dodged it. Well actually you brought up an even worse example.You asked me what I thought about their beliefs.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I didn't Go back and look at my question again. You sort of dodged it. Well actually you brought up an even worse example.You asked me what I thought about their beliefs.
No, I didn't Go back and look at my question again. You sort of dodged it. Well actually you brought up an even worse example.
Yes it does. You need to take off the blinders.The Old Testament never mentions sexual slavery.
Yes it does. You need to take off the blinders.
I was not talking about those verse right now. Though that example is bad enough on its own. I was talking about the fact that the Bible allows a Hebrew father to sell his daughter into sex slavery.There are other explanations for Numbers 31, and God never told Moses to spare the Midianite virgins. It was something he decided to do. Even if the Israelites used them as sex slaves there's no evidence Moses allowed that, and the Israelites were human beings with a sinful nature.
I was not talking about those verse right now. Though that example is bad enough on its own. I was talking about the fact that the Bible allows a Hebrew father to sell his daughter into sex slavery.
And let's drop the "sinful nature" BS.
Once again you are defending your God's evil nature. Have you read the Ten Commandments? The first three could be tossed since they are simply sops to his vanity and much more worthwhile ones could replace them.God make concessions to our sinful nature.
What do you think the alternative explanations are?
They don't contradict the belief of the flood
Geologists don't say its the result of a single flood because they don't believe in the flood.
There are unanswered questions, but it is far better to have unanswered questions than to have wrong answers.
First of all, they are not "alternative" explanations. They are the only explanation.
And, obviously, that explanation is that it's the result of many different, local, floods at different periods throughout history. A history, stretching billions of years.
Flooding isn't exactly a rare process.... it happens every day, somewhere.
Also, not all sedimentary layers are the result of "floods".
Plenty of "dry" land today, was actually the bottom of the sea eons ago. The earth is quite a dynamic thing. What today are mountain tops, used to be ocean floor millions of years ago.
Except that they do.
Because the evidence shows it wasn't the result of a single flood.
In 1953 people found out that Piltdown Man was a hoax.
Radiocarbon tests showed that the skull was from a 600 year old woman and the jaw to a 500 year old orangutan
The Nebraska man was from an extinct pig
Neanderthals were fully human
and had stooped posture because of disease and they spoke and were artistic.
Asexual reproduction doesn't explain the intermediates of gender.
How can someone be neither gender and both gender?
Gender isn't gradual. Either you are male or you are female.
What are the chances that both male and female existed at the same time?
Charles Darwin said in the Origin of Species that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Charles Darwin birthday: Six quotes from the Father of Evolution
Darwin also had doubts about natural selection. Quote by Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable...”
One scientist said 99% of modern people and some say all modern people, share genes with an ancestor named Y chromosome Adam, and people also believe that we descend from mitochondrial Eve. How does that not support that there was only one man and one woman?
What did our ancestor's ancestor have-an intermediate Y chromosome? I'm not saying its impossible, I just dont have any evidence.
We still don't know about the origin of how the eye works. What do we know about the eye having inimitable contrivances and adjusting the focus to different distances?
The founder of the theory of evolution gave doubts to natural selection to the degree of not having another opinion.
This isn't about my beliefs this is about Darwin believing that evolution is a theory
Did science create an alternative theory for what Darwin couldn't explain or didn't know about the eye?
The Bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God. The context is in talking about the Bible's views on atheism. Darwin said that the difficulty of believing that the eye could be formed by natural selection shouldn't be considered subversive of the theory. How am I taking him out of context? Saying that theory is insuperable by our imagination doesn't take away that natural selection was just a theory to him and not something he was fully convinced about.
I believe that people are atheists because it gives them the belief that they have nobody to answer to
Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on
Yes, eyes dont fossilize, but there would still be evidence of the intermediates of eyes. While nobody said that the smallest cells can develop in nature within less than billions of years, making a modern cell would speed up the process, therefore, the fact that people haven't made cells shows that there is doubt about evolution being a fact.
People have observed microevolution, not macroevolution, happen with one subspecies evolving into another. Subspecies are still of the same kind of animal or plant. A caspian tiger and siberian tiger are still the same species of animal, even though people have different opinions about how closely related the caspain tiger is to the siberian tiger. Some people think its the same subspecies, some people think its a cousin subspecies. Whatever they are to each other, they are still tigers.
People and animals are different species of beings.
Animals don't obtain joy from the sounds of music or have orchestras. Animals don't create and harmonize music
For the sequences of DNA to arrange themselves in nature, would be an example of an impossible thing happening. DNA functions like an alphabet.
I didn't see any evidence that Darwin didn't express doubts about natural selection being true.