Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Whose fault was it? Romans Or Jews

Recommended Posts

Guest

Darklight, you are very, very close. I love it when people actually study history. good job!!

quote:

Originally posted by Darking

What's funny is that with all the facts that we know about Evolution, it takes more "Faith" to believe in that than the faith that it takes to believe in God.


You don't know very much about Evolution, do you?

Quoting Darwn is silly, Darwins theory has very little to do with the modern theory of evolution.

And it takes NO faith at all to understand it, nor realize how close to the truth it probably is.

Evolution is the best theory to explain the facts we have.

quote:

originally posted by XOR

Jaguar, how can you say Jesus is a good man if you are Jewish? To a Jew Jesus would eaither be a liar or an evil man because he says he is the son of God and Jews dont belive this to be true otherwise they would all be Christians.(read a book called "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, He tried to disprove Christianity but in the end he became one)

Sorry, I'm not Jewish, so we will leave it at that. Oh, and Jesus NEVR claimed to be the ACTUAL son of God. and I will leave it at that as well. He actually stated MANY times that he was the son of man.... We'll leave it that as well.

quote:

Also you must not be 100% certain about the information you are talking about, otherwise you would be compelled to tell us. Keeping information hidden that could otherwise save people makes you evil. (Thats just like if you saw somone that couldnt breath and you didnt give them CPR even though you knew how to do it.)

I am as close to certain as I can be when it comes to historical study, but it's Not my job to convince you, if you want the truth, I can point you in the direction, but it is NOT up to me to convince you that I am right, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me.

quote:

You know what else troubles me ? That you never explained how you looked into the possibility that the information that turned you from God is false, some lie, some hoax... If you loved someone and another person told you all these bad things about the person you loved wouldnt you search for the truth? And if questioned about it, provide the truth?

You are hardcore, aren't you? Why would I want to take your faith from you? I do know the truth, or as close to the truth that is possible to know, with what has survived the ages. You have the bible, and that's great, but I have far more, and every time I have questioned, the answer is there, in cold hard factual information, no faith necassary. History is a wonderful teacher, if you are open minded enough to read it for what it says, and not pervert it to what you want it to say.

quote:

But maybe you never really loved Jesus in the first place otherwise you probably never would have turned your back to him. I remember seeing a verse in the bible, but i dont remember the exact verse but it was God saying something to the effect of "If you knew me and then turned on me then you will wish that you were never even born" (keep in mind that Jesus is God)


I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, was converted to a Born again Christian, looked at the whole situation with an open mind and went, "WTF". Then I studied, and studied, and studied, and found the answers that I was looking for.

And keep this in mind, YOU believe that Jesus is God, I on the other hand understand that he is and was indeed the King of the Jews, who's time had not come, because the Romans were there and too strong to deal with. He was the "Jewish" Messiah, which is TOTALLY different then the Christian definition, and he failed, but there is still time....

Christians like to threaten me with hell, and eternal damnation and all that, but there is one problem, I am THOROUGHLY convinced that there is NO such thing, so your threats do not work with me.

I look at facts, and if you decide to look at them as well, more power to you, but it is NOT up to me to lead you down the primrose path, nor is it up to me to take your religious faith away from you.

As a matter of fact to hit you with all this information I have, and destroy what you obviously so desperately need to bring balance to your life, is one of the biggest sins that I could ever commit.

It is never right to take religious faith from a person, it is up to them to find the truth as they need to.

Remember this....

quote:

Sometimes, the things that may or may not be true, are the things a man needs to believe in the most.

I believe wholeheartedly in that quote above, you NEED to believe that Christianity is right, and that you know the truth and that Jesus is the Son of god, or that Jesus is God. Well, more power to you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to understand how someone can be "converted" to being a "Born again Christian". I can see how a person might consider themselves converted to being a Christian but to be converted to being a "born again Christian" is an entire change in lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Forever Light:

I fail to understand how someone can be "converted" to being a "Born again Christian". I can see how a person might consider themselves converted to being a Christian but to be converted to being a "born again Christian" is an entire change in lifestyle.

I used Converted, and I meant converted, it is much better then saying "brainwashed".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to place significance upon your usage of the words "born again christian". To be born again is to meet God soul to soul and you are so different afterword that you are "born again". Aka, you had been converted to Christianity but not to being a Born again Christian.

[ 02-28-2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Forever Light ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Forever Light:

I meant to place significance upon your usage of the words "born again christian". To be born again is to meet God soul to soul and you are so different afterword that you are "born again". Aka, you had been converted to Christianity but not to being a Born again Christian.

Interesting, Okey dokey, whatever trips your trigger I guess.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever trips my trigger is irrelevant. Im just pointing out that your claiming to have been a born again christian is most likely not true. Especially considering the underlying attitude within your usage of the words having been "converted" to being a born again christian but later changing your mind. So I merely meant it as a correction since to be born again is a massive change in your life. However from what you say you merely were converted as if you had converted underwear from boxers to briefs. I just wanted to point out the difference.

[ 02-28-2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Forever Light ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Sorry, I'm not Jewish, so we will leave it at that. Oh, and Jesus NEVR claimed to be the ACTUAL son of God. and I will leave it at that as well. He actually stated MANY times that he was the son of man.... We'll leave it that as well.

Sorry Jaguar, I somehow got your name mixed up with the quote in SC's post

quote:

Oh, and Jesus NEVR claimed to be the ACTUAL son of God. and I will leave it at that as well. He actually stated MANY times that he was the son of man.... We'll leave it that as well.


Matthew 26:63,64

Mark 14:61,62

Luke 22:70

Yes he said he was the son of man but he also agrees to being the son of God.

quote:

I am as close to certain as I can be when it comes to historical study, but it's Not my job to convince you, if you want the truth, I can point you in the direction, but it is NOT up to me to convince you that I am right, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me.

I dont need to pay you to know if I want the truth, I wouldnt waste my time with something I didnt think was real because that would just be stupid

quote:

You are hardcore, aren't you? Why would I want to take your faith from you? I do know the truth, or as close to the truth that is possible to know, with what has survived the ages. You have the bible, and that's great, but I have far more, and every time I have questioned, the answer is there, in cold hard factual information, no faith necassary. History is a wonderful teacher, if you are open minded enough to read it for what it says, and not pervert it to what you want it to say.

I seek the truth in all things, even when it hurts... And there is more to life than just facts, if you cant see that then you are only seeing half of whats out there. You have to look closely because it is very subtle and easy to miss if you arent paying close attention.

quote:

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, was converted to a Born again Christian, looked at the whole situation with an open mind and went, "WTF". Then I studied, and studied, and studied, and found the answers that I was looking for.

I see...

I take that means you started off Catholic but then you realized that was wrong and became Protestant or whatever? Then after that it didnt make sense anymore? so you found something you thought made sense and stuck with that. If that isnt what you mean than please explain

quote:

I look at facts, and if you decide to look at them as well, more power to you, but it is NOT up to me to lead you down the primrose path, nor is it up to me to take your religious faith away from you.

As a matter of fact to hit you with all this information I have, and destroy what you obviously so desperately need to bring balance to your life, is one of the biggest sins that I could ever commit.

It is never right to take religious faith from a person, it is up to them to find the truth as they need to.


With power comes responsibility. Knowledge is power and since you claim to have knowledge that ultimently makes you part of someone else's journey to the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no one killed Jesus because he stated simply. I have given myself freely, which means he had /has the power to stop what they were doing to him but he didnt... So really the only power the jews or romans had was the power he gave them, or better yet, They did what he let them do. I saw the movie and actually its not about jews or romans or even people.. Its about the time a diety came to live among us.. thats what its about not people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Forever Light:

Whatever trips my trigger is irrelevant. Im just pointing out that your claiming to have been a born again christian is most likely not true. Especially considering the underlying attitude within your usage of the words having been "converted" to being a born again christian but later changing your mind. So I merely meant it as a correction since to be born again is a massive change in your life. However from what you say you merely were converted as if you had converted underwear from boxers to briefs. I just wanted to point out the difference.

As I said, whatever trips your trigger.

I said Born again, and that is exactly what I meant, but I realized what I was doing and went in search of the actual truth and found it.

I am no longer a born again Christian, When the truth hits you upside the head, it's kind of hard to ignore.

Anyway, as I said, in this time of your life you need Christianity and that's great, and you might need it later as well, I know what the truth is, but the fact is that I am not going to share it with someone who obviously loves and needs their religion as much as you do.

I know EXACTLY what Born again means, I also know EXACTLY what Jesus of Nazareth stands for too. Do you? It was mistranslated, it is actually Jesus the Nazarene.

Do you know what Nazarene means, or is?

Look into it, you might be surprised.

That's all the info I am going to give you right now, if you decide to delve into it, let me know what you find out and I will point you further along the path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, forgive me...but you are failing to understand where im coming from and what my motivations are for posting. I dont care how you think you found salvation inside scientific knowledge or how Christianity brainwashed you (or tried too) or whatever. Im not looking to you for answers nor do I want any guidance.

All my involvement is focused upon your claiming to have been a "born again Christian" and saying it lightly as if it were just bad gas. Having gas is a phase. Being born again is like a brain transplant...you are a different person...and its not something you can look back upon and say you have become "unborn again". How you have been wording it is likened to an oxymoron. You cannot be "converted" to a big change in your life. Nor can you have a brain transplant and then change your "mind". It either happened or it didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by DREADA:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Evolution is the best theory to explain the facts we have.


Yeah, I was taught that in school too. But now renown Nobel Prize winners, esteemed university professors and many microbiologists across the world are slowly finding that it may not be the best theory and in fact Evolution, whilst possible, may not even be the big picture at all.

http://www.theevidence.org/episodes/episode11.php

So to open scientific minds, other possibilites exist.


Ahh, yes, ID, Intelligent design.

Sorry, not at all scientific, it is the crackpots that are afraid of saying "we don't know".

Because we don't, by the way, those lactose experiments are and were questionable, and are still being played with. There was NOTHING about them that has been at all, shall we say, complete.

ID is a crackpot theory, and not all scientific.

Evolution still is the best theory to explain the facts that we have. Darwins Origin of the species is as far from evolution, as Physics is to sparks on rocks.

Evolution is NOT Darwinism, and this is what ID's claim that it is. Darwinism is a separate and odd checksum of evolution, not at all the whole theory.

The whole theory is FAR beyond Darwin's thoughts, but the IDr's would have us think that the whole theory is nothing but darwin's.

Sorry, doesn't wash, and won't wash. ID is not scientific, and until it is, there is no way that I will give it any credence at all.

Evolution is seen and played with EVERY day by geneticists, they see it in action. One little experiment, that was questionable in it's execution, does not displace thousands of other experiments that prove that evolution happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

You don't know very much about Evolution, do you?

Quoting Darwn is silly, Darwins theory has very little to do with the modern theory of evolution.

And it takes NO faith at all to understand it

Actually I understand A LOT about evolution, I've studied it for years. As a matter of fact, in my younger days I used to believe in it. There are so many details that I could go into that it would take volumes for me to write but I'll just give you something very small.

One of the things that science used to say about the 97% of DNA that we don't use is that it was "Junk DNA" left over from the evolutionary process. That DNA, they said is the remnants of when we were Monkeys, Fish, Ameoba, everything was there, if only we could unlock it. Well, the Genome mapping project shed a little light on that mystery. It turns out that the supposed "Junk" DNA was actually a form of "Corrective" DNA that kept the small percentage that actually defines us, from going bad, wrong or from changing. In other words, it's a negation to evolution.

Now the differece between this tidbit of information is that it is TRUE science, in that it is a proven FACT. Unlike the debunked theory that came before it, which was just that. A Theory. The biggest problem with science these days is that people are more concered with theory's and dreams than they are in science. When evidence shows up to discredit the theory, it's just swept aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Sorry, not at all scientific, it is the crackpots that are afraid of saying "we don't know".

But evolution IS scientific? OK let's review.

One day there was nothing then BANG

Here's the Universe! Where did it come from? No where it formed itself!?! OK Very scientific.

It's like the Magician pulling the Rabbit out of the hat, BUT WAIT!

There is no Hat and there is no Magician, just poof!

Very scientific indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Now you are talking about the big bang, which has NOTHING to do with evolution.

You want to talk Cosmology, we can talk about it, but we are discussing evolution.

So either stay on topic or switch, but don't pretend we are discussing one and then switch to the other.

That is something that won't work with me.

Evolution is NOT the big bang, and the big bang is NOT evolution.

Speak of one or the other, do not try and switch.

This is the tactic of creationists, and it does not and will not fly nor work with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Now you are talking about the big bang, which has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Oh I see, so we're going to discuss Evolution from the time that God made the Universe and not from the time that the Universe and the Planets made themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Now you are talking about the big bang, which has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Oh I see, so we're going to discuss Evolution from the time that God made the Universe and not from the time that the Universe and the Planets made themselves.


I thought that we were discussing science, not fantasy and religion.

Please decide which we are discussing, myth, fable, religion, or are we discussing science.

If you wish to discuss religion, then let's, but don't pretend that it is science, or somehow has scientific value, because it does not.

The Big bang is a specific theory, and a part of cosmology, NOT evolution, evolution is a very specific part of science, ( also a part of cosmology) and at the same time a very general science, considering that MOST, if not all of modern biology is based upon it.

To toss away evolution or ignore it because it goes against your religion is one of the most ridiculous things that I have seen religions do.

Science is science, religion is religion.

They are 2 different realms. One is based on evidence, and conjecture, the other is based on faith and wishes.

You wish to discuss religion, let's, you wish to discuss science, GREAT, but do NOT confuse the 2.

It is obvious Darkling, that I am frustrating you, so let's place some groundrules.

If you wish to discuss evolution, then let's, but do not, I repeat, do not bring up cosmology, because evolution is not cosmology, it does not claim to know how the universe began( the big bang), it does not claim that it knows how life began(abiogenesis).

When there was life, evolution started, and here we are. What started it?(abiogenesis) evolution does not claim to know, how the universe started(the Big bang), evolution does not claim to know.

Therefore, if you wish to discuss evolution, STICK to evolution, instead of playing these creationist games.

Thanks...

[ 02-29-2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other note: please define if you are speaking of macroevolution(species a becomes something new) or micro(variation within the genetic code of species a, does not become something new).

Many Christians jump on all things evolution as inherently evil but some fomrs of evolution are scientifically viable, where I draw the line however is at macroevolution of which I've yet to see solid evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Other note: please define if you are speaking of macroevolution(species a becomes something new) or micro(variation within the genetic code of species a, does not become something new).

Many Christians jump on all things evolution as inherently evil but some fomrs of evolution are scientifically viable, where I draw the line however is at macroevolution of which I've yet to see solid evidence.

Fossils give a pretty good piece of evidence for Macroevolution, considering that there are Millions of them, and when aged, fit into a row rather nicely.

Macroevolution is basically proven. Fossil records show this to be true.

Also, there are modern examples in plants of Macroevolution. Plants that are obviously related, but will not breed with each other, and they have happened naturally, not manmade.

Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is proven.

Macroevolution takes thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years in mammals, so to actually be able to see macroevolution in action is impossible in higher animals, unless of course you have a time machine and go backwards and forwards.

Also, human beings have slowed our evolution through medicine, people that would NOT normally survive, are able to survive and pass on the genes that should have killed them, therefore those genes are kept in the gene pool.

Human beings have taken themselves out of the natural selection process, and will continue to do so.

Macroevolution is proven, just as microevolution is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only proof I know of for macroevolution is one fossil found out in the boonies of China. Even though it had been "faked" by piecing together two different fossils, parts of one of the pieces showed the "possibility" of a reptile with feathers.

No other real proof exists. The Piltdown man was a fraud. Lucy and her cousin can't be directly linked to mankind. Consequently, scientists are beginning to wonder. By now, with all the exploration and digging, something should've been found. But nobody has found a missing link. Not for Homo sapiens. Not for any other species.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong. But I do believe science has yet to prove it as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Marvin:

The only proof I know of for macroevolution is one fossil found out in the boonies of China. Even though it had been "faked" by piecing together two different fossils, parts of one of the pieces showed the "possibility" of a reptile with feathers.

No other real proof exists. The Piltdown man was a fraud. Lucy and her cousin can't be directly linked to mankind. Consequently, scientists are beginning to wonder. By now, with all the exploration and digging, something should've been found. But nobody has found a missing link. Not for Homo sapiens. Not for any other species.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong. But I do believe science has yet to prove it as fact.

Oh please, we have the whole line of horses plotted out, from the earliest to the modern, Whales, from when they walked on land to now when they swim in the sea, Birds, we have almost the entire lineage shown in the fossil record.

Come on, give me a flipping break......

Macroevolution not proven? You guys need to get a grip....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by DREADA:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar: Sorry, doesn't wash, and won't wash. ID is not scientific, and until it is, there is no way that I will give it any credence at all.

Well Jaguar, speaking for myself, please don't think I'm trying to convince you of anything per se. Everyone can believe whatever they want to. I don't claim to know all the answers.

All I'm saying is that IMO there are other possibilites out there and those who really know what science is, know whilst being an extremely valuable and useful new tool, science cannot have all the answers to this age-old reality known as the universe. In other words, despite our postmodern culture, science is not all its cracked up to be.

Unproved hypotheses like this and the Riemann Hypothesis, which has become the unsure foundation of many other theorems are examples of things that should be accepted as unprovable but nonetheless true In other words, there are some things that scientists will always have to take on trust. (Marcus C, "The Omega Man", NewScientist, 10 March 2001, p31.)

Kurt Godel(1906-1978), one of the greatest logician of the 20th century, proved what many scientist would rather ignore - that even science and materialism will always have to be taken on faith... or if you prefer "trust". They didn't teach you that in school, did they?

I'm studying to become a professional engineer and I'm christian. I don't have a problem with that or need to play creationist games. I've studied science and engineering at university for a long time now. I also have faith and believe that there is a God. They both help me in my everyday working life. When science runs out of steam and cannot help and logic cannot do the impossible for me, God steps in. Having my faith means that I am not sadly some machine limited to black and white logic. IMO Humans, by virtue of intelligent design transcend that existence. LOL, you could say I get the best of both worlds, but that's just my personal experience.

Also, the personal beliefs/preferences of people, even scientists, forever play a role in determining how they draw conclusions using science to perceive the world around them. So to be absolutely honest and I'm not saying this is you, but IMHO I think many atheistic, staunch defenders of science may have unfortunately experienced distorted views of biblically-based christianity/God (and I say biblically-based christianity and not just christianity or religion because evidently not all religion is good religion and not all christianity is biblical) that has left them with anti-christian/anti-God feelings leading them to defend traditional science in the face of other possibilities as though it was infallible, all-encompassing and absolute; but the reality is nothing originating from mankind is those things.

Regarding Abiogenesis, I think Louis Pasteur and others proved centuries ago the folly of abiogenesis. As expected the search will continue on Earth and places like Mars/Europa for evidence of spontaneous generation of some kinda "proto-life" that is "vastly different" to today's earth-based lifeforms but are searched for using earth-based theories/tools! Fifty years of biochemical research has shown that under many environmental conditions, spontaneous abiogenesis is an impossibility. So IMO it's really only a matter of time before Chemical Evolution collapses under the weight of facts that show life comes from life.

Just my 2 cents.

ps. A bit on fossils you may find interesting.


I will say this once, and only one more time.

Science, is science, religion, is religion.

One is based on the best evidence and conjecture, the other is based on faith, and in the existence of god.

They do not mix, science is science, religion is religion, You cannot use one to prove or disprove the other.

I have my religious understanding, but I do not mix that with science.

Any scientist that mixes their scientific study with their religious beliefs is a crackpot and does not understand what science is.

There is no room for FAITH in science, and anyone that claims that there is, does not understand science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one reads the book A Brief History Of Time, by Stephen Hawking, one notices how Hawking tries desperately to keep the question of God alive while discussing what science has uncovered.

Hawking ultimately relies on the Heisenburg Principle of Uncertainty, which says that at the quantum level of particles, one can know the position of a particle but not its velocity, or the velocity of a particle but not its position, because the act of observing the particle alters is characteristics. Therefore, one must resort to probabilities to predict the outcomes of quantum events.

Hawking suggests that this uncertainty was present at the beginning of the universe, and so one cannot explain with certainty why the conditions suitable for life, amongst all the other possible conditions of the universe, has emerged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The Big bang is a specific theory, and a part of cosmology, NOT evolution, evolution is a very specific part of science, ( also a part of cosmology) and at the same time a very general science, considering that MOST, if not all of modern biology is based upon it.

Actually Both Evolution AND the Big Bang are both part of the same "scientific" Theory of where our Universe, Our planet and all life came from. To try to separate them as somehow separate, well that just doesn't make sense. Where did the planets come from, specifically where did earth come from. You're the one that is trying to Ignore one part of the theory and grasp to the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

To toss away evolution or ignore it because it goes against your religion is one of the most ridiculous things that I have seen religions do.


Tell me ONE single part of evolution that is a proven FACT. Evolution is a THEORY, it does not conform to Scientific methods, so if you BELIEVE in evolution, with no proof, then that is the same as my belief in God creating the Universe and everything in it. So you have your religion (Evolution) and I have mine, (My belief in God)

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Science is science, religion is religion.


So true, but Science requires Proof, which Evolution doesn't have Again.. it's all theory

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

They are 2 different realms. One is based on evidence, and conjecture, the other is based on faith and wishes.

So please tell me the Evidence, because all I've seen is faith and wishes on the part of the Evolutionist wanting to be right.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

It is obvious Darkling, that I am frustrating you, so let's place some groundrules.


Don't get a big head, And don't get personal, it's a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Any scientist that mixes their scientific study with their religious beliefs is a crackpot and does not understand what science is.

There is no room for FAITH in science, and anyone that claims that there is, does not understand science.

But YOU are putting a lot of Faith in science. Carbon Dating is the only Scientifically proven method of dating that there is. Since nothing has ever been found that can be proven to be more than 8000 years old, Scientist came up with Radio Isotope Dating, which is COMPLETELY Thoretical and is subject to individual variances in results. Yet many scientist have put complete faith in this form of dating to "Prove" other theories on Evolution. So one theory is being used to prove another theory that is then used to prove another theory. This doesn't sound scientific to me, it sounds like a faith based initiative. As you said, science is science and religion or Faith is just that. So show me the REAL Proof, not proof that is based on other theories.

It's like I said before Jag, I've studied Evolution in Detail, I used to believe in it, but when I realized that all of it was built like a house of cards, it just didn't make any sense to me anymore. I think that if you REALLY took a look on the supposed "Facts" that make up Evolution, you will see a pattern of misinformation, and more FAITH than science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Carbon Dating is the only Scientifically proven method of dating that there is.

How about geological sedimentary analysis of rock layers and what's found within them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×