This is a violation of forum rules. Not your first one.
I think you don't understand what is needed to abide by the rules.
In this case you should:
1) Pick the particular thing that you are trying to support (of yours) or refute. Quote and/or link to the post. 2)Supply the link you want to use, preferribly a "deep" link to the particular page that is germane. If not directly then at least supply location where it is. 3)Pick the most relevant parts of that link and quote them 4)In your own words explain why you think this is relevant and how it refutes/supports.
quote:NEANDERTHALS —Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals." Scientists recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.
In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis.
In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.
"... rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight." A lie, albeit not an mportant one. Rickets is caused by lack of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight is one way of obtaining vitamin D, but far from the only way. See Rickets for more information. Since someone writing an essay like this has the responsibility to verify the claims, this is delberate.
"Scientists recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets ..." Another lie. Rudolf Virchow claimed in the 1800's that the first Neandertal that we found had rickets as a child, and arthrits in late life. However, the symptoms of rickets and of arthritis do not produce skeletons like Neandertal skeletons. There is serious doubt as to whether the first-found Neandertal had rickets at all. In addition, almost all of the Neandertal skeletons found since then did not hqve rickets or arthritis, and this has falsified Virchow's claim (which may have been a reasonable one given the information he had at the time). Their skeletal features are due to significant differences between them and home sapiens (us). See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.htmlCreationist Arguments: Neandertals and Neanderthals and Modern Humans.
See how it's done, almeyda? A clear statement of that with which you disagree, exactly what you think is wrong with it, a dsicussionof why you feel that way, and rerferences to where you got your information or for further information.
MARK24- The Bible is proof & also that civilisation only started 5-6,000yrs ago whereas Evolution says we evolved over time bit by bit which doesnt fit the facts.
The bible is proof of nothing more than there is a religious book called the bible. It isn't even "proof" that civilisation began at that time, it is only evidence that the bible was written at that time.
Civilisation indeed began at around that time, & it is in no way inconsistent with evolution. Your problem seems to be that you can't jive humans being around for twenty times longer than civilisation. That it took a vast amount of time for the discoveries that are necessary to allow urbanisation to arise. Tough, that's your problem. You see, there's evidence that man WAS around a hundred thousand years ago. And there are corroborating evidences that make the earth a lot older than that, as well.
So, for FOR THE FIFTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
But the Bible was the first one. The rest came after. So it means its the original. Which other book has the creation of the world? or the end of the world?. Which other book has fullfilled prophecies?. Which other book can challenge the theory of evolution like the Bible can?. Are there muslims or buddhas using science to verify there claims?. What book are creationists basing there evidence on? The only God who was there when it happened. (Isaiah 41:23, Isaiah 40:21, Isaiah 41:4, Isaiah 41:22-29, Isaiah 43:8-9, Isaiah 44:6-10, Isaiah 45:21-22, Isaiah 46:8-10, Isaiah 48:3-6) ...No im not using these passages as proof. But for those of you with Bibles you can read some interesting passages on God of the Holy Bible & his challenges to false religions. He is the first and the last. (And as for the proofs well you need to read AiG, Unfortunately most of you think its bogus because evolutionists have already proved this etc, Once you realise that they both found the same evidence just interpreted to different frameworks you will then see the evidence that supports a young earth and the Holy Bible)
Sumerian Creation Stories <<< I have never heard of this,What is it and where did they write all this.
the Great Hindu Creation Stories <<< This one also please tell me about it.
Yes evolutionists base it on Gods world but they explain it without God. They do not want supernaturalism because the world is a natural world. They are excluding God from the world. Yes there are christians who believe in evolution but it came from compromising their faith and they dont know the dangers to reinterpreting your foundation to your entire gospel. What about that Great Debate you had in mind?
Lying is a serious charge. According the The Merriam-Webster dictionary the primary meaning of "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim.
But the Bible was the first one. The rest came after.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Religious texts that predate the bible are legion. And for your information Christianity is one of the more recent religions. Perhaps you are referring to Judaism?
Which other book has the creation of the world? or the end of the world?.
They all contain fairy tales, what's your point?
Which other book has fullfilled prophecies?.
Name ONE prophecy that meets the following standards?
"1. The prophecy must be specific. For example, "There will be wars and rumors of wars" does not qualify as a specific prophecy. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply.
2. The complete prophecy must be fulfilled. If parts are fulfilled and parts not fulfilled then the prophecy is not considered fulfilled. In other words, you can't pick and choose predictions out of a longer prophecy.
3. The prophecy must be interpreted in the context in which it appears. A prophecy about one time period or geographic region or political entity can't be reinterpreted into other venues.
4. The event or person or whatever that fulfills the prophecy must have extra-Biblical corroboration.
5. The original prophecy itself must be interpreted in a straightforward way, not in some convoluted way.
6. If the prophecy is mundane and easy to satisfy, then it must not have been previously known to the person, group, whatever, that fulfills it."
Not one. Not a single solitary one. Believing a prophecy to be fulfilled is an entirely different to showing it.
Which other book can challenge the theory of evolution like the Bible can?.
All of them, ie. none of them.
*Snipped irrelevant rest of your post*.
Once you realise that they both found the same evidence just interpreted to different frameworks you will then see the evidence that supports a young earth and the Holy Bible.
Where the fuck is it, then? I have asked for legitimate scientific evidence in support of a 6,000 year old earth for five posts now & got nothing.
How do you interpret multiple corroborating dating techniques that show the K-T boundary as being 65 million years old, for example, as being 6,000 years old? What sort of anti-logical, drug induced haze must you live in to think that it can be done? The creation timeline has no evidence that supports a 6,000 year old earth, & faces contradictory evidence that the earth is indeed much older. They are contradictory positions & cannot be reconciled.
Now, FOR THE SIXTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.
This is getting embarrassing.
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
I really really really wished my post of Bible prophecy was allowed through as it really met with your standards of a prophecy. (Is there anyway it could be allowed through,Administrators?)...Im not going to give you evidence because when i do its from AiG and get nothing but bagged out for it but that is the evidence i have.. There is no dating method that proves something to be 65 million yrs!..Its based on assumptions..Assumptions that the earth formed billions of yrs ago therefore layers means millions of yrs,dead bones means they extinct 80 million yrs ago..They are interpreting the facts because the bones do not come with a label telling you the age and a dating method cannot prove something to be 80 million yrs old..Its based on the opinions of evolutionists..Nothing more..Its not based on real scientific facts,Its based on an evolutionary worldview. When creationists give there view on the evidence it is in conflict with evolution but it is not in conflict with facts. As much as you may want them to be proven facts they dont even come close. So when you see evidence for creation you musnt compare them to what evolutionists say because it will always be something else, What you can compare is how consistent it is with what the only person who was there when it happened says!. All dating methods rely heavily on interpretations. Since there is no dating method that can prove these ages where are they getting these ideas from??????????...From an evolutionary interpretation of course.The difference is in the way we interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. So you guys continue for your whole lives believing what some guy says because he wears a white coat and because he tells you its fact and its proven. I certainly will not believe a person who may be a great scientist but when he comes to saying what happened in the past then im sorry but his methods of experimentation are very limited indeed
I certainly will not believe a person who may be a great scientist but when he comes to saying what happened in the past then im sorry but his methods of experimentation are very limited indeed
Ever watch that TV show, "CSI"? Maybe they don't have it in Australia, but it's one of those shows where scientists and police solve crimes based on evidence - a process called "forensics."
Almeyda, across the world police put people in jail - murderers and rapists - based on what scientists learn about the past. If scientific opinion about the past is enough to impress a judge, convince a jury, and put a criminal behind bars for good, why isn't it enough for you?
Somehow, I suspect you have no problem with the practice of criminal forensics, because it keeps your neighborhood safe. But apply techniques that are absolutely the same to go a little farther in the past, and suddenly it's not good enough for you.
You've got a double standard, Almeyda, because you refuse to consider any evidence that might conflict with your beliefs.