I thought I heard a hummingbird break wind. God will not be mocked. In a hundred years, it will be Richard who?
Ya, just like global warming science. The author drank too much of the coolaid.
But also, this is nothing but conjecture. Studies prove this and studies prove that and chewing gum causes cancer but the other study says no, gum PREVENTS cancer.
Studies come and studies go -- God's word is forever.
I am not a scientist, so sometimes the subtlety of their arguments escapes me, but don't those "10,000" have a genome that originated somewhere, or is the assumption that those 10,000 spontaneously generated?
What arrogant claptrap! I dare those who have been steeped in an academic “doublethink” are often those with the least ability to evaluate the reasonableness of the evidence.
Make no doubt about it, these folks are cultists of the worst type, funded by the worlds ruling elite. They want massive depopulation and world government.
I highly recommend this shocking book for those wanting a more in depth, well researched and documented explanation.
Actually I’ve always thought natural science museums could do a bit better job with displays of the innumerable examples of transitional fossil sequences.
Those who accept literally the story of Noah - and think all species on Earth are descended from those “kinds” of animals that could fit on a Ark - believes in evolution and the (semi) common descent of species.
Moreover they believe evolution happens at a rate far in excess of that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.
And yet they claim to not believe in evolution.
They are obviously quite confused.
A lot of the stories in the Bible are used to make a point rather be literal. “Eating from the tree of knowledge” is obviously a description of humans learning and retaining what they learned. That is when humans separated themselves from the animals after all, when we became “self aware”. Actions have consequences, Adam and Eve hid themselves because they realized their thoughts and actions are transparent to God, they are “naked” to him.
I guess that is one way to interpret Genesis, I guess.
Would Dawkins say that this is also wrong? lol.
Didn't they say something similar about the AGW scam as well?
We can all look and enjoy a beautiful garden but only the children believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.
IF the Bible says it’s a myth, then it is. If It don’t, then it ain’t.
God created science.
This is ignorance on display.
The author is apparently unaware of the population bottleneck caused by the Toba volcanic eruption some 70,000 years ago. Many theories suggest that we all evolved from as few as ten females. Plus or minus nine.
“It ain’t necessarily so...
“It ain’t necessarily so...“
“Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. Thats because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. Its out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles.”
A two word rebuttal:
Absolute and utter nonsense.
What makes a human unique is that he has a soul. The story of Genesis is the truth and science does not contradict it, but instead supports it. The Big Bang theory is the same sequence of events described in Genesis. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but was made in 7 days - those are consistent statements. Science has shown by Einstien, that time is relative to the frame of reference. The 13.7 billion year age is from an earth reference. Seven days is from the reference envelope of the entire universe. An excellent easy to read book on this is the Science of God by Gerald Schroeder who is a physicist
Adam obtained his soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Whether there were other homo erectus on earth is not addressed in the Bible and not terrbily important. Events then began unfolding rapidly for humans once he has a soul with the beginning to farm, and the bronze age.
The author appears to be ignorant of the media's seamless record of slanting and falsifying scientific data to support the establishment worldview. Remember global warming (cooling?) and the "scientific" proof that gays are born that way?
Macro-evolution (as opposed to micro-evolution) has never been proven methods that do not require begging the question. Recent discoveries on the previously unimaginable complexity of cellular organelles demonstrate the impossibility of macro-evolution.