[Rachael Van Helsing]

Time to post that link again, I see.

From this link:

The Primordial Soup Theory states that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is suppose to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Both developed this theory independently in 1920.

In this theory, the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere (w/o oxygen). This was then energized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the "organic soup". The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation. Evidence now suggest the first organisms were autotrophs

Chemist Stanley Miller and physicist Harold Urey did a famous experiment in 1950 to test this theory. They mixed gases thought to be present on primitive earth:

Methane (CH4)

Ammonia (NH3)


Water (H2O)


Hydrogen (H2)


No Oxygen

They then electrically sparked the mixture to signify lightning. The results were amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It was later discovered that other energies also can excite gases and produce all 20 amino acids:

Electricity

Ultraviolet light


Heat


Shock

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

And what about neanderthals? And skeletons like Lucy? And iceman? And cave paintings? They've even found footprints here dated around 50,000 years ago, many times older than what you claim the earth is. And then there's dinosaurs. Proof that the earth is older than you say it is.

They've also dated human bones and early tools at millions of years old. What is your point? Faulty dating methods which assume the psuedo-scientist know how much of a given element was in a certain area and that no unknown factors attributed to element lose or gain.

Neanderthals are now called aborigines. You're from Australia. You should know this. Lucy is a plain old ape species that died off. What I find to be your most ignorant assumption is that we are descended from this extinct ape species. All I see are various bones of distinct and completely seperate creatures who hold no relation to one another. How on earth do you get the nerve to claim that one distinct species evolved from another? Where is your proof, harlot?

How many times must I repeat myself?

!!!!!NO TRANSITIONARY FOSSILS!!!!!
!!!!!NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ONE SPECIES CAN TRANSFROM INTO ANOTHER!!!!!

By your logic I can argue that man evolved from roaches. And since a praying mantis is more humanoid in shape than a roach it must be a closer ancestor. See, I can arbitraily make outrageous claims too.


Again you keep going to the only thing you can use. The missing link. Yes, there's a missing link. But there are still other fossils around, and we may one day find more. I've noticed that your main argument is the missing link. Because you HAVE no other argument.

Who needs any other argument?

You have no proof for evilution. I could see you now as a lawyer in a statutory rape trial, "Your honor, the prosecution keeps harping on the fact that the 14 year old girl's baby was fathered by my client. Why don't they use any other argument to prove his guilt? Ha! They can't!!! All they have is a patternity test." Silly woman....

[/COLOR]Ditto.


And how do you know? As I said, unless I could go back in time and personally see it being written by this big dude in the sky, I won't be believing that any divine being wrote it.


But a divine being has told you already through the Bible. Duh!!! Hello?!?! anyone in there?? You are making a complete fool of yourself.

You know, the bible, what it consists of, is in actuality a mishmash of old documents and scrolls thrown together. It was never really intended to be put together in that way or as a guide.

You don't claim not to know if God authored the Bible yet you have detailed information on how it was written? You are a hypocritical liar. You believe in anything anti-christian in a heartbeat while stubbornly ignoring the truth of the KJV1611.


Provide physical evidence Adam existed? You're always going on about 'transitory fossils being missing', well, Adam's bones are also missing! 6000 year old bones shouldn't be hard to find if that were the case! You have NO evidence of anything in genesis actually happening except what it says in some dumb book!


Adams bones could be any human bones. Duh!!

[I]Which a monkey with a typewriter could have written! And the bible you use is not even the oldest version anyway. It was written 1611, only 395 years ago. Surely that in itself shows the problems facing your claims?

Inspired by God to wash away the catholic taint.

Chalk up another victory to me...

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Just a question for you VanHellbound; do you wake up in a new world every 20 minutes?

I've posted this before, but apparently your chicken-sized brain has expelled all recollection of it and has to be reminded....

Care to explain the contradictions illustrated below? Man-made items embedded in rock that has been "carbon tested" for millions of years ago?

[SalvationSeeker]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

The Primordial Soup Theory states that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is suppose to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.
The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Both developed this theory independently in 1920.

Exactly, it says theory. That means it is unproved. NO PROOF.
Stop acting like it would be some absolute truth, like the holy KJV1611 Bible is.

Second, the earth is 6000years old, not 3.8billion years old.
That alone discredits this stupid idea.

In this theory, the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere (w/o oxygen). This was then energized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the "organic soup". The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation. Evidence now suggest the first organisms were autotrophs
Chemist Stanley Miller and physicist Harold Urey did a famous experiment in 1950 to test this theory. They mixed gases thought to be present on primitive earth:

'THEY MIXED GASES THOUGHT TO BE PRESENT ON PRIMITIVE EARTH.'
Exactly, the think they were present, but as usual, they have no proof whatsover. What a bunch of mormons.

Methane (CH4)
Ammonia (NH3)
Water (H2O)
Hydrogen (H2)
No Oxygen

So I suppose these chemicals, as well as the amino acids must have souls.
You're really missing the point, our souls are us, our very selfs as humans.
If humans evolved our souls MUST have evolved too, it's simple logic. You cannot separate the two.

And since we all know that we have souls, while animals don't, rocks don't, and this "promodial soup" as sure as your eternal damnation don't..
Then we can quickly conclude this is more satanic propaganda.
I cannot believe you believe this crap over the holy KJV1611 Bible.

They then electrically sparked the mixture to signify lightning. The results were amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It was later discovered that other energies also can excite gases and produce all 20 amino acids:

Wow.. So let me get this straight, they took some chemicals they BELIEVED to be present that long time ago.
They then put some electricity through it and created yet more chemicals? How spectacular.

In case you didn't know, amino acids is nothing but chemicals, amino acids aren't alive. And proteins isn't alive either.

Electricity
Ultraviolet light
Heat
Shock

The only light that could create true life is the light of God allmighty, praise Him!
The satanic scientists will never be able to duplicate His Glory!

PRAISE JESUS!

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Both developed this theory independently in 1920.

So, your theory was developed by a Russian in 1920? You'd rather take Communist propaganda over the word of the Lord God, King of Kings, the Rock of our salvation? You are truly doomed, deluded and disgraceful.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Originally Posted by Remy Lebeau

They've also dated human bones and early tools at millions of years old. What is your point? Faulty dating methods which assume the psuedo-scientist know how much of a given element was in a certain area and that no unknown factors attributed to element lose or gain.

Neanderthals are now called aborigines. You're from Australia. You should know this. Lucy is a plain old ape species that died off. What I find to be your most ignorant assumption is that we are descended from this extinct ape species. All I see are various bones of distinct and completely seperate creatures who hold no relation to one another. How on earth do you get the nerve to claim that one distinct species evolved from another? Where is your proof, harlot?

How many times must I repeat myself?

!!!!!NO TRANSITIONARY FOSSILS!!!!!
!!!!!NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ONE SPECIES CAN TRANSFROM INTO ANOTHER!!!!!

On and on you go about that and how there's nothing to prove transition, evolution. Well I've got news for you, THERE IS!!

Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One example is 'Archaeopteryx', which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found.
Then there are the fossils which show how modern horses from the tiny Eohippus.
Whales descended from four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition.
Fossil seashells how how mollusks evolved through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists like you, however, somehow look at these above examples and refuse to see what's right in front of you, hoping instead for us to produce some completely newfangled skeleton of some previously unknown species. Look at the evidence, no transitory fossils, BAH!

By your logic I can argue that man evolved from roaches. And since a praying mantis is more humanoid in shape than a roach it must be a closer ancestor. See, I can arbitraily make outrageous claims too.

Read what I said above. You're clearly taking nonsense. A roach is far more seperate than just a species.

Who needs any other argument?

You do, seeing as I've clearly just proved you wrong. Don't believe me? Look this information up, it's all true.

You have no proof for evilution. I could see you now as a lawyer in a statutory rape trial, "Your honor, the prosecution keeps harping on the fact that the 14 year old girl's baby was fathered by my client. Why don't they use any other argument to prove his guilt? Ha! They can't!!! All they have is a patternity test." Silly woman....

Again, read my above response about the fossils. That is clearly proof that evolution can, and has occured.

But a divine being has told you already through the Bible. Duh!!! Hello?!?! anyone in there?? You are making a complete fool of yourself.

Humans wrote the bible. And no divine being has ever shown up to claim otherwise. So until that happens, and I'm guessing it never will, that claim is completely invalid.

You don't claim not to know if God authored the Bible yet you have detailed information on how it was written? You are a hypocritical liar. You believe in anything anti-christian in a heartbeat while stubbornly ignoring the truth of the KJV1611.

That doesn't make me hypocritical or a liar, it just means I've done my research more than you. Knowing how it was written BY HUMANS is simply research. Something which it seems is a foreign concept to you.

Adams bones could be any human bones. Duh!!

You're really grasping at straws here, aren't you?

Inspired by God to wash away the catholic taint.

]
Such an imagination. You should consider writing children's stories, about the boogeyman and such. There's as much evidence that the boogeyman is real as their is for your 'god'.

Chalk up another victory to me...

I think not.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

So, you are willing to believe that we "evolved" from communist monkey soup, but the idea that we "evolved" from a cockroach, why THAT would be ridiculous? HA HA HA HA! Oh you crack me up you empty-headed females!

[SalvationSeeker]

How about answering me, Roachel?
Stop trying to dodge the real issues.

Your satanic theory is, as all such theories, extremely flawed.

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

On and on you go about that and how there's nothing to prove transition, evolution. Well I've got news for you, THERE IS!!

Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One example is 'Archaeopteryx', which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found.

What do you not understand about the words "distinct", "separate", "unrelated" and "species". There is no evidence that this feathered behemoth evolved from a scaled behemoth. For all we know those can be demon fossils. The ancient wetbacks had tales of pre flood feathered serpents and even foolishly worshiped them. They called them Quetzalcoatl or something like that.

Let's recap: Pseudo-scientist dig up the bones of distinct separate unrelated species. The idea that different species are related because one mutated into the other is CONJECTURE!!!!

If you cannot prove that these distinct species did not appear out of nowhere as they were then you cannot claim evilution is fact. You can BELIEVE in evilution. You can think it's the greatest theory since gravity. But you cannot PROVE it.

I can prove that the world is roughly 6,000 years old and that all life that is and was created as is. Read the KJV1611, wench.

Then there are the fossils which show how modern horses from the tiny Eohippus.

No, there are distinct bones of separate non-related species which you claim are related without any proof.

Whales descended from four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition.

So where is the transition between all this so-called in between species?

Why can pseudo-scientist find tons of Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus(whatever the heck those are) yet no physical evidence to link one to the other? Like I said; NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

Dear simply minded woman,

A praying mantis is more humanoid than a roach. Do you now believe that humans evolved from roaches? Sure, there is no physical evidence linking the roach to the praying mantis, but apparently you don't need evidence.

Creationists like you, however, somehow look at these above examples and refuse to see what's right in front of you, hoping instead for us to produce some completely newfangled skeleton of some previously unknown species. Look at the evidence, no transitory fossils, BAH![/I]

"Bah!" indeed.

You refuse to look at what's right in front of you. A world designed by an intelligence. Yet I'm supposed to see how a dog evolved into a hyena, and a hyena into a tiger? The platypus is hairy, lays eggs, a flat wide tail, and has a bill. I guess we can claim that beavers evolved into ducks or ducks into beavers, right. Conjecture!!! Conjecture!! Conjecture!!!

You do, seeing as I've clearly just proved you wrong. Don't believe me? Look this information up, it's all true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You haven't proved anything. In that case I've clearly proved that humans evolved from roaches and the praying mantis is a missing link.

Again, read my above response about the fossils. That is clearly proof that evolution can, and has occurred.

You have yet to dispute the fact that you cannot disprove creationism as told in the Holy Bible KJV1611. If you can prove evilution then you can disprove creationism. You have yet to prove that all species, past and present, did not simply appear on earth as they are.

Humans wrote the bible. And no divine being has ever shown up to claim otherwise. So until that happens, and I'm guessing it never will, that claim is completely invalid.

Jesus did show up. Duh!!! President Bush has spoken with Jesus about world events and how he should proceed. Duh!!!

That doesn't make me hypocritical or a liar, it just means I've done my research more than you. Knowing how it was written BY HUMANS is simply research. Something which it seems is a foreign concept to you.

Unless you have a time machine you're full of it

Such an imagination. You should consider writing children's stories, about the boogeyman and such. There's as much evidence that the boogeyman is real as their is for your 'god'.

The boogey man never wrote a book.

How many times must a out debate you, Van Hellbound. When will you realize my True Christian™ mind is too great for that of a retarded female Australian? If Steve Erwin was a larger brained male of you people what does that say about the smaller brained females of Australia?

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

So, you are willing to believe that we "evolved" from communist monkey soup, but the idea that we "evolved" from a cockroach, why THAT would be ridiculous? HA HA HA HA! Oh you crack me up you empty-headed females!

She sure did skip your post. I wonder why?

[Rachael Van Helsing]

I'll answer you all when I have a bit more time, don't right now, seeing as it'll take a while to type up the essay that's required.

Some quick points though:
1) You're arguing two points here, not just one, evolution and origin of life on earth. The two are connected but not the same thing. So let's argue one at a time.
2) Claiming that I'm full of it unless I have a time machine is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard here, which is saying plenty. Unless YOU have one, you can't prove creationism.
3) Enough with the empty headed comments already! It's been done to death, yes, we all know you think it, now can we please move on!

Anyway, back later, I have real life matters to attend right now.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

Just a question for you VanHellbound; do you wake up in a new world every 20 minutes?

I've posted this before, but apparently your chicken-sized brain has expelled all recollection of it and has to be reminded....

Care to explain the contradictions illustrated below? Man-made items embedded in rock that has been "carbon tested" for millions of years ago?

Ok, first of all, when I asked you last time for other links and DNA and datin evidence to support this, you provided a grand total of zero except for that one biased link.
Next!

Exactly, it says theory. That means it is unproved. NO PROOF.
Stop acting like it would be some absolute truth, like the holy KJV1611 Bible is.

Yes evolution is a theory, I'll admit that, and all theories have holes. But there is far more to support evolution than there is to support your bible. Just when was the 'second coming of christ' meant to be? According to those who keep predicting it, some insisted it was in the late 1990's, others thought it would be the year 2000, others said it was the your 2004, the date keeps changing, and unless someone with the same name as JC (and I'm betting there is) is engaging in something sexual, that'd be about the only 'second coming' of anyone named JC going on. *snicker*

Second, the earth is 6000years old, not 3.8billion years old.
That alone discredits this stupid idea.

Absolutely all scientific evidence would contradict that. There is not even a shred of scientific evidence to support that claim. Not even on. And claiming 'oh but carbon dating is wrong' is NOT acceptable as proof. If it was, murderers on trial could as easily claim 'oh but the DNA testing method is Satanic and wrong!' I'm sure they do try that, but no jury would buy it.

'THEY MIXED GASES THOUGHT TO BE PRESENT ON PRIMITIVE EARTH.'
Exactly, the think they were present, but as usual, they have no proof whatsover. What a bunch of mormons.

And this is less believable than some giant sky dude going 'let there be light'?

So I suppose these chemicals, as well as the amino acids must have souls.
You're really missing the point, our souls are us, our very selfs as humans.
If humans evolved our souls MUST have evolved too, it's simple logic. You cannot separate the two.

Don't be stupid. To me as a pagan, and others who believe the same, the soul is not a part of the flesh, it is seperate, not fixed. And we are talking other dimensions here, not just this third dimension.
How old are you anyway? 13?

And since we all know that we have souls, while animals don't, rocks don't, and this "promodial soup" as sure as your eternal damnation don't..
Then we can quickly conclude this is more satanic propaganda.
I cannot believe you believe this crap over the holy KJV1611 Bible.

Everything you just said points clearly to the fact that the only rocks you need be concerned about are the ones in your head. Please use a logical argument.

Wow.. So let me get this straight, they took some chemicals they BELIEVED to be present that long time ago.
They then put some electricity through it and created yet more chemicals? How spectacular.

In case you didn't know, amino acids is nothing but chemicals, amino acids aren't alive. And proteins isn't alive either.

They are the building blocks of life, dullard. When you take apart a human being to the very basic components we are close to 90% water with a bit of substance thrown in. These components, on their own, are not alive. Yet they make up a living human being. Did you graduate high school or do you make a living cow tippin'?

The only light that could create true life is the light of God allmighty, praise Him!
The satanic scientists will never be able to duplicate His Glory!

But for those Satanic scientists, you wouldn't be arguing with me on your computer right now, and very likely you wouldn't be alive, but may well have died of whooping cough during infancy.
Next!

What do you not understand about the words "distinct", "separate", "unrelated" and "species". There is no evidence that this feathered behemoth evolved from a scaled behemoth. For all we know those can be demon fossils. The ancient wetbacks had tales of pre flood feathered serpents and even foolishly worshiped them. They called them Quetzalcoatl or something like that.

Let's recap: Pseudo-scientist dig up the bones of distinct separate unrelated species. The idea that different species are related because one mutated into the other is CONJECTURE!!!!

If you cannot prove that these distinct species did not appear out of nowhere as they were then you cannot claim evilution is fact. You can BELIEVE in evilution. You can think it's the greatest theory since gravity. But you cannot PROVE it.

I can prove that the world is roughly 6,000 years old and that all life that is and was created as is. Read the KJV1611, wench.

And what do YOU not understand about that evidence? If that's so why are there apes, you ask? Then by that logic one could also ask 'if children came from adults why are there still adults?' See what I'm saying? And besides, humans and apes would have evolved from a very close or common ancestor.
But you asked for transitory fossils. I gave you transitory fossils. As for seperate, look at Archaeopteryx again. Are the words 'bird' and 'dinosaur' lost on you? If you think those are the same species, you really are a simple simon. But there is evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The words in a book are not proof. By that idea, if that were true, then everything ever written could arguably be presented as absolute truth as well. And do you see Steven King's 'It' coming to life? Well? Do you?

No, there are distinct bones of separate non-related species which you claim are related without any proof.

They are clearly related and would have been tested. You can research the findings for yourself if you like.

So where is the transition between all this so-called in between species?

Why can pseudo-scientist find tons of Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus(whatever the heck those are) yet no physical evidence to link one to the other? Like I said; NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

Dear simply minded woman,

A praying mantis is more humanoid than a roach. Do you now believe that humans evolved from roaches? Sure, there is no physical evidence linking the roach to the praying mantis, but apparently you don't need evidence.

I provided you with AMPLE examples of transitional fossils. You are simply looking at them going 'no....but....but....' they are transitory fossils. What do you expect, some other magical halfbreed seperate species hence unknown? I've shown you transitory fossils, and arguing that they aren't just proves you to be a dullard.
As to your insect theory, you are talking about completely unrelated families there. Please stay on topic. Next you'll start using fairies and leprechauns to support your THEORY of creationism. That's right. Creation is not proven. Look anywhere and it is referred to as a THEORY.

"Bah!" indeed.

You refuse to look at what's right in front of you. A world designed by an intelligence. Yet I'm supposed to see how a dog evolved into a hyena, and a hyena into a tiger? The platypus is hairy, lays eggs, a flat wide tail, and has a bill. I guess we can claim that beavers evolved into ducks or ducks into beavers, right. Conjecture!!! Conjecture!! Conjecture!!!

Would you stop using different families as your stupid example?? We are talking about species evolving from previous species, NOT about different families morphing into something completely different. Do you know anything about biology, or are you making it up as you go?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You haven't proved anything. In that case I've clearly proved that humans evolved from roaches and the praying mantis is a missing link.

No, you've proven that you have at best a basic understanding of biology and a very active imagination.

Jesus did show up. Duh!!! President Bush has spoken with Jesus about world events and how he should proceed. Duh!!!

And can anyone else testify to this, beyond reasonable doubt? Has anyone witnessed these exchanges taking place? Anyone?

Unless you have a time machine you're full of it

Apply that sentence to yourself, hypocrite. What's more, I believe YOU have 'borrowed' that line from me! Use your own!

The boogey man never wrote a book.

But I'm sure the boogeyman is mentioned in a book. Same way as your deit(ies) are MENTIONED in a book written by PEOPLE. Therefore, same amount of evidence. End of discussion.

How many times must a out debate you, Van Hellbound. When will you realize my True Christian™ mind is too great for that of a retarded female Australian? If Steve Erwin was a larger brained male of you people what does that say about the smaller brained females of Australia?

Seeing as I originally come from the US, are you calling all female americans stupid too? (Although admittedly a fair few of them are but there are stupid people everywhere and 2 stupid males for every stupid female is my guess)
And are you calling someone else stupid, you who cannot even spell IRWIN??
Learn to spell and get over yourself, you aren't omniscient.
Next!

[Jesus is Lord]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

Yes evolution is a theory, I'll admit that, and all theories have holes. But there is far more to support evolution than there is to support your bible. Just when was the 'second coming of christ' meant to be? According to those who keep predicting it, some insisted it was in the late 1990's, others thought it would be the year 2000, others said it was the your 2004, the date keeps changing, and unless someone with the same name as JC (and I'm betting there is) is engaging in something sexual, that'd be about the only 'second coming' of anyone named JC going on. *snicker*

Those were just wild guesses. People have been predicting the end of the world for centuries. The thing is nobody but God Himself knows when the end will come. Not even Jesus knows when. But don't you worry, Jesus is always ready and when God says it is time for the end Jesus will be here in a flash.

Originally Posted by Matthew 24:36

36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Originally Posted by Mark 13:32

32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Originally Posted by Jesus is Lord

Those were just wild guesses. People have been predicting the end of the world for centuries. The thing is nobody but God Himself knows when the end will come. Not even Jesus knows when. But don't you worry, Jesus is always ready and when God says it is time for the end Jesus will be here in a flash.

I'm pretty sure scientists could predict the end of life AS WE KNOW IT pretty accurately if we keep on living as we're living, polluting the planet as we have been.
And besides, did you know the book of revelations was written about a time long ago, the time of the Romans. And did the world end then? No sir.
Next!

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

Yes evolution is a theory, I'll admit that, and all theories have holes.

So you admit defeat? Good.

Finally you've realized that just because one set of old bones looks similar to another does not mean that one set evolved into the other. After all, the platypus, the beaver, and the duck have similarities, but nobodies claiming the platypus is the missing link between beaver and duck.

If there were transitory fossils and it could be verified that evilution happens then it wouldn't be a theory. Praise Jesus for making me a male with a logical and sound mind.

Now how about you make yourself useful and get me a beer, woman.

Seeing as I originally come from the US, are you calling all female Americans stupid too? (Although admittedly a fair few of them are but there are stupid people everywhere and 2 stupid males for every stupid female is my guess) And are you calling someone else stupid, you who cannot even spell IRWIN?? Learn to spell and get over yourself, you aren't omniscient.
Next!

You're the descendant of the spawn of the violent drunken rape of a native Australian neanderthal and your pick pocket serial killer convict great great grandfather after he stumbled of of that British prison ship. Don't even try and group yourself with Americans. What kind of American would move to Australia?

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

I'm pretty sure scientists could predict the end of life AS WE KNOW IT pretty accurately if we keep on living as we're living, polluting the planet as we have been.
And besides, did you know the book of revelations was written about a time long ago, the time of the Romans. And did the world end then? No sir.
Next!

Dear Mrs Van Hasselhoff. You are attempting to debunk the Bible and then argue that the THEORY of Evilution makes more sense than the THEORY of The Divine Creation. The problem is that Creation is fact, not theory and evilution is theory, not fact. Your ability to confuse fact with fiction astounds and dismays me.

[SalvationSeeker]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

Yes evolution is a theory, I'll admit that, and all theories have holes.

Good, like Remy said, you're obviously admitting your own defeat.

But there is far more to support evolution than there is to support your bible.

No transistory fossils, and no proof of any species ever becoming another species. So just what proof would that be?

Just when was the 'second coming of christ' meant to be? According to those who keep predicting it, some insisted it was in the late 1990's, others thought it would be the year 2000, others said it was the your 2004, the date keeps changing, and unless someone with the same name as JC (and I'm betting there is) is engaging in something sexual, that'd be about the only 'second coming' of anyone named JC going on. *snicker*

Bah, you cannot expect false christians to get anything right.

Absolutely all scientific evidence would contradict that. There is not even a shred of scientific evidence to support that claim. Not even on. And claiming 'oh but carbon dating is wrong' is NOT acceptable as proof. If it was, murderers on trial could as easily claim 'oh but the DNA testing method is Satanic and wrong!' I'm sure they do try that, but no jury would buy it.

So what proof do you have that carbon dating is correct?
Or that DNA testing is correct?
You don't have any.

And this is less believable than some giant sky dude going 'let there be light'?

No. God is not a "giant sky dude". He is GOD, plain and simple.
But yes, He created everything. Praise JESUS!

Don't be stupid. To me as a pagan, and others who believe the same, the soul is not a part of the flesh, it is seperate, not fixed. And we are talking other dimensions here, not just this third dimension.
How old are you anyway? 13?

So the soul just flies in from outer space?
And when does it do that then? (In short, when do you get one..)
While you're a sperm? While you're a fetus, or, more in line with satanic propaganda, week 18?

And what creatures have, according to you, souls?
Bacteria? Cells? Animals?

Since, according to you, we evolved from bacteria (and into many forms before we became humans), shouldn't they have souls too..?
Since you do not believe in God giving us humans souls.

So it's not I who am stupid, it's you who keep contradicting yourself...
Yet with you being a dimwitted female, that's hardly a surprise.



Everything you just said points clearly to the fact that the only rocks you need be concerned about are the ones in your head. Please use a logical argument.

I see you turn to insults when you run out of arguments.
Typical unsaved trash behaviour.

They are the building blocks of life, dullard. When you take apart a human being to the very basic components we are close to 90% water with a bit of substance thrown in. These components, on their own, are not alive. Yet they make up a living human being. Did you graduate high school or do you make a living cow tippin'?

The point is, dimwit, that proteins on their own cannot do anything.
They cannot combine to form any life without outside stimulation.

Yet you're saying they can, thus you contradict both God and your own precious scientists.

But for those Satanic scientists, you wouldn't be arguing with me on your computer right now, and very likely you wouldn't be alive, but may well have died of whooping cough during infancy.
Next!

I was a healthy child, as Jesus intended me to be, thank you.
Please don't confuse me with yourself, who Jesus probably tried to slay at birth.

PRAISE JESUS!
Get on your knees and beg for His forgiveness, harlot.

[Talitha]

I still say that smoking is a Biblical pastime:

Genesis 24:64
And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

Here is a photograph of a Holy Painting of Jesus© I have in my study.
I was told by the Freehold Antique Emporium it is 100% genuine.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Originally Posted by Pastor Al E Pistle

Dear Mrs Van Hasselhoff. You are attempting to debunk the Bible and then argue that the THEORY of Evilution makes more sense than the THEORY of The Divine Creation. The problem is that Creation is fact, not theory and evilution is theory, not fact. Your ability to confuse fact with fiction astounds and dismays me.

In order for creation to be fact it would have to be proven. It is not proven. The bible is not proof, it is not evidence, it is just a book. If the sky opened up and your sky king came out of the clouds and said 'I made the world' and then performed some miracle, and EVERYONE saw it, and it was captured on still and video camera, THAT would be proof. And until that happens, which it never will, you won't convince me otherwise. So there!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by Rachael Van Helsing

In order for creation to be fact it would have to be proven. It is not proven. The bible is not proof, it is not evidence, it is just a book. If the sky opened up and your sky king came out of the clouds and said 'I made the world' and then performed some miracle, and EVERYONE saw it, and it was captured on still and video camera, THAT would be proof. And until that happens, which it never will, you won't convince me otherwise. So there!

Oh ye of little faith.....

So what you are saying is, that cheap magic tricks captured on (photoshoppable) video will convince you of God's power, but looking at the world around you will not....

Even for an empty-headed female, you are exceptionally foolish. Your logic is that of a retarded child.