• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is denial of geology any way to spread Christianity?

That's my point. They happened together!

What came first? the egg or the chicken?


How did plants and animals happen together? Unless it's by creation!

Where did they come from?
 
:roll:

What's conversion's got to do with geology?

If you happen to meet a tribe that's ignorant about the world....wouldn't you try explain to them about that knowledge?
Wouldn't you teach them about sanitation....at least?


If this lost tribe practice something that's been scientifically found harmful - wouldn't you try to correct them?

That's my point.

Christianity is harmful.
 
1 Science has done more to disprove the Bible than support it.

2 "Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago" That's my point.


You're not offering anything to sustain your "argument." You're simply reiterating your own personal opinion.
Saying, "that's my point" is not an argument. Explain about your "point."
 
You're not offering anything to sustain your "argument." You're simply reiterating your own personal opinion.
Saying, "that's my point" is not an argument. Explain about your "point."

See the original post.
 
I asked Tim what came first, the chicken or the egg?


Scientists wielding a powerful supercomputer have cracked the mystery of which came first,
the chicken or the egg.

The short answer: the chicken.



Science answers the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? | Toronto Star
A few years ago, a British geneticist, a philosopher and a chicken farmer pooled their resources and concluded that the egg came first. The first egg to have the DNA of a chicken would hatch into a chicken, said professor John Brookfield of the University of Nottingham in 2006.

Chimed in scientific philosophy professor David Papineau of King’s College London:

“If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg.”

However, the bird which was not a chicken laid that first chicken egg.
 
:roll:

Are you saying you cannot defend your own position?
Originally Posted by tosca1
Science happens to be supporting the Bible in so many ways.

Perhaps not forever. Who knows.....

Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago.
1 Science has done more to disprove the Bible than support it.

2 "Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago" That's my point.

You have to remember things from more than 30 second ago.
 
However, the bird which was not a chicken laid that first chicken egg.


The evolutionist has a different story to tell, however. To them, chickens evolved from other kinds of birds, although which ones remains unclear. It wasn't flightless birds which gave rise to chickens, because they are thought to have descended from birds which could fly but lost that ability through mutation. Actually, the origin of all types of birds which live today are shrouded in mystery leading bird expert, Alan Feduccia, to proclaim, "The origin of birds is still up in the air."

It's fashionable today to claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs, although again, there is little agreement on which dinosaur lineage was ancestral to birds. The claim persists in spite of the fact that birds and dinosaurs differ markedly. Legs must become wings and scales must become feathers. Dinosaurs had solid bones, yet bird bones are hollow. Reptilian dinosaurs were likely cold blooded while birds are warm blooded with an extremely high metabolism. Dinosaurs had lungs similar to mammals, while the bird's breathing scheme is totally different. At least dinosaur eggs were similar to birds eggs internally. Externally, they had a soft, leathery shell quite different from bird's eggs.

All of these changes are thought to have been accomplished by acquiring new genetic information through random mutation. Did the mutations occur in the adult progenitor of chickens or in its eggs? There is no evidence of either.

A more interesting question arises. Which came first—the commitment to naturalistic evolution and the necessity that animals arose from different animals, or the data to support it?


What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

If you want to pursue this, perhaps you might want to start a different thread in science.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
However, the bird which was not a chicken laid that first chicken egg.
tosca1's reply;
The evolutionist has a different story to tell, however. To them, chickens evolved from other kinds of birds,

ARGH!!!!!!!!!! Your sentence has the same meaning as mine. It agrees! It's not different!!! WAKE UP!!!!
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

tosca1's reply;


ARGH!!!!!!!!!! Your sentence has the same meaning as mine. It agrees! It's not different!!! WAKE UP!!!!



Of course that would agree with you. It should. Otherwise.....you'll have more explaining to do. :lol:

"Them" are the EVOLUTIONISTS!

The evolutionist has a different story to tell, however. To them, chickens evolved from other kinds of birds,

Btw, that was from an article - not my own sentence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom