care to give us a quote/reference to that? cause i dont believe you.
Same
Sure, the word Behemoth was used in the Bible. Behemoth is debatable, but it has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24
It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1.
“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26).
Leviathan is a “reptile that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)
So logically we can conclude Behemoth and Leviathan are references to dinosaurs.
i think food would actualy be the ideal thing to worship
'cus thats the only thing that realy keeps us alive at the moment( besides water, but i enjoy food mre than water)
Food doesn't have intelligence so why worship it?
Progress is slow, good mutations are continued and distributed throughout a population, bad mutations result in death. Also, bad mutations still exist because of the very nature of mutations, they happen randomly.
The frog is perfect for his environment. As is the human. There is no reason for the frog to suddenly die out, as it still survives. Just because something superior comes from it doesn't mean it automatically dies. It survives until it can no longer, then it dies. I have found evolution to be a very stable concept.
Please explain away the conclusive evidence that human and dino never existed during the same period.
If mutations occur, they haven't been observed due to slow or any progress at all.
So if something mutates because it has to adapt, then why does the anscestor still live on? It conflicts. It had to mutate to adapt, but the mutation still lives while the obsolete member still lives? It is supposed to make progress.
"bad mutations result in death"
"Just because something superior comes from it doesn't mean it automatically dies"
If it is obsolete then it should, otherwise there is no reason for the mutation. When did frogs mutate, and if they mutated so long ago then why do they still exist?
I've spent the last several minutes reading their articles. They seem to partially make sense, however each one that I have read has glaring problems (Everything from basic logic, to trying to prove something by using evidence that we have yet to prove) They seem to like to use theoretical models and ideas to prove points, which is like building a skyscraper with no foundation on mud. You'll just end up with a crappy two storied house with a staircase leading down to stuff.
Evidence we have yet to prove? Like what? And using logic and theoretical models is the same as evolution. Except evolution started out as an unsupported theory but was later reinforced with logic. Philosophy is the basis of religion and science.
Watch the debates, even though they are long, they are quite cohesive and rely heavily on facts to build logical conclusions and refutations to common and uncommon arguments.
