kemmer

My response is the same in both cases.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Don’t you think that is what he did do??? I do~~

kemmer

Disregarding the stories of talking snakes in the garden, men living to the age of 900, and a global flood 4000 years ago killing everyone on Earth except 8 "ark" passengers?

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Makes sense that you developed without intelligent design you maroon.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

You have to understand that kemmer's god is SELF!

kemmer

You have to understand that 500 years ago Parky would be one of those who’d burn at the stake anyone not believing as he does. He hasn’t changed much.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

You, my reprobate friend, lie like a rug. It's like breathing for you, eh?

Smedley_buzkill

Evolution, per se, is pretty well established. The theory part lies in the nuts and bolts everyday operation. There has never been a satisfactory explanation, for instance, of the (for lack of a better term) explosion of life in the early Cambrian Period. Life went from one-celled pseudo-plant/animal forms to complex, multi-celled plants and far more complex invertebrate life in what amounts to a geological eyeblink. The likelihood of some things happening absent intervention of some sort is beyond mathematically impossible, yet we are asked to believe that it happened not once but countless vigintillions of times, since if it happened here, odds are that it happened elsewhere in this unthinkably vast universe we live in. The descent of man from a more primitive primate is nothing compared to the complexity of an amphibian becoming a reptile. There are thousands of fossil remains of both amphibians and reptiles and none of any transitional forms. If this was a gradual evolution as is theorized, where are the thousands of transitional remains? Why are they not found in the same number as the established forms, or found at all?
Much of evolutionary "fact" is simply guesswork. There is little doubt that more than six hundred million years ago there was nothing but one-celled plants and perhaps virus type organisms on Earth. All of a sudden, about 550 million years ago, literally out of nowhere, all these complex life forms just.... happened. As I said there is no satisfactory and verifiable explanation for this phenomenon, yet the best guesses of "scientists" are presented as established and proven fact, not theories. The "Great Die Off" of the Ordovician Period was followed by a rapid repopulation during the Silurian Period for which there are no really satisfactory explanations, and the catastrophic extinctions of the Devonian and the rapid recovery during the following Carboniferous Period are categorized by theories masquerading as fact.
Much of Evolutionary Theory taught as fact violates the laws of Thermodynamics stating that left alone, the complex devolves or decays to the more simple. Evolution as theorized either ignores this fact or tries to explain it away by tying the entropic aspects of thermodynamics into granny knots, ignoring the theory of probability.
Evolution as a phenomenon propelled by entropy is like saying a tornado went through a junkyard and by accident, managed to produce an F-16 by pure chance.
If you put the greatest evolutionary "scientists" in the world in the best laboratory, with all the equipment and supplies they could possibly need, do you think they could produce ONE SINGLE ORIGINAL THOUGHT? How about one entoproct? Evolutionary Theory cannot be tested using the Scientific Method yet is presented as established, proven fact. What's up with that?
Belief in Intelligent Design does not equate to belief in an organized religion, mono or polytheistic. Much of Evolutionary Theory could be better explained as a f*cked up experiment that had to be redone by some kind of Intelligence than an act of randomnity.

Smedley_buzkill

So one is either an Atheist or a practitioner of some sort of organized religion? You cannot believe in God unless you are a Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Animist or whatever?
As a matter of fact, there is a growing body of evidence that there was severe flooding in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin (the "Holy Land") about ten to twelve thousand years ago, caused not by rain but tectonic activity. It is not hard to see how that would become a worldwide flood in a story-telling society where written language had not yet been invented. (By the way, Creation happening some 6000 years ago is a myth, since the Biblical city of Jericho is considerably older than that.)
People today cannot comprehend how far semi-nomadic hunter/gatherers traveled. The same people who believe fantastic explanations of evolutionary occurrence scoff at the idea that primitive man could and did travel as much as He did. Stories of a flood in different hemispheres are more than likely stories of several events that were embellished over the years. In a pre-literate world, the village story teller was the rock star of his or her day. You add a little glitz to the story to further enthrall your audience. A little plagiarism from a traveling tribe you met somewhere maybe. Like the rock stars of today, it probably got them laid more often.
I personally consider organized religion an attempt to explain the inexplicable. To reduce the actions of an Intelligence far beyond our own to human-comprehendible terms. A worthy pursuit, but I don't know of any organized religion anywhere that is not riddled with corrupt politics of some sort or another. I did not set out to publicize my own religion oriented thinking, so I will pause here to give you lesser mortals time to digest my profound and erudite offerings.

kemmer

Truth hurts, eh Parky old sod? 😁

kemmer

The ancient Hebrews picked up the flood story from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, and ran with it, adding lots of color and pathos.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

He proves it daily.

martsiva

NO - i is not an established fact!! I read a report years ago where Darwin had doubts about this THEORY!!

martsiva

NO you can`t since you know NOTHING about Christianity and you reject these 'little stories' that explain many things through Bible study!

robertv3

I think your explanation is pretty good.

I agree with parts of it. And I could simply leave out any mention of any god.