Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Either you believe in Christ and are saved, or not. If you reject Creationism, that there is a Divine Creator who has created creatures including humans, what will you believe? That by random chance life created itself billions of years ago before anyone witnessed it? Nay, one has become man and witnessed to the Truth because Jesus says he is the Truth, and in the beginning before time existed there was the Word and the Word was God.

When you put words in my mouth to support your own delusions, I never said subscribing to evolution absolutely leads to atheism, but you HAVE REMOVED the word absolute because apart from the Truth (God) nothing can exist. I believe in a God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Amen, Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not. Contrary to popular belief, there is ABUNDANT PROOF of God's Divine Revelation in salvation history from the days before the Old Covenant to modern-day apparitions and Eucharistic miracles: 'To those who believe, no explanation is required. To those who doubt, none will suffice.' The harvest is indeed abundant, but the laborers are few.

I sorta figured that. I have nothing to discuss with you although I love to read what many of the IDers accept as facts an evidence while really not proposing any evidence to support their belief system.

Youve made up your rules by which to live nd die, and apparently we both wish to do good and be of value. Our reasons are at polar opposites and I suppose each of us rejects the other so, rather than jut turning this into an insult-o-thon, Ill move on an you can try to convince others of your stirling intellect.

When they just deny that science even exists it's a sign that nothing can be settled by an argument.

But its fun to listen to their "thoughts'

Sure. That's the charm of interacting with leadfoot.

Interesting finds from Paleo anthropology over the last few weeks. It appears that human "ichnofossils" (Fossils of a species activities , not their remains) have been found in the White Sands National Park. Human footprints by the hundreds, were found in a layer of gypsum sand that Carbon i4 and thermal dating techniques have undrpinned each other and have shown that these human footprints wre between 21 an 25K years old. The data i presently being evaluated at several labs and institutions and preliminary QA seems to back the resuults. (Itll be a few years for it to be fully resolved.

Seeing these data has been an almost irrefutable chunk of evience that humans were in this hemisphere much longer than "Folsom First" archeologists have been insisting for yers now.

Its interesting how evidence keeps lening toward a more world wide cosmopoliyan view of settlement of the Americas. If correct, this would open up present "wild" hypotheses of population migration from other areas besides Beringian routes.

It appars that, from th footprint faturs an patterns, these footprint could have been a combination of youngsters scouring an area gathring rsourcs an othr kids who were just playing. As some behavioral folks get involved Im sure some neat stories of a "Day in the life of LAte Pleistocene Kids" will be forthcoming

Beautiful. I regret being as old as I am because of the new finds I will miss out on in future years.

From what I understand Homo Sapiens colonised the Americas before Europe, although the Neanderthals were already there.

Ive not heard that ince no actual fossils of any Hss or H (predecessor) had ever been found in North America.All such fossils have been found in Africa and Asia Minor

It was on some TV programme I saw a while back, I'm sorry to be so vague.

From what I remember, humanity came out of Africa into the Middle East and then the rest of Asia, crossing the Alaskan ice bridge before other Sapiens went into Europe.

One question that puzzles me - I continuously see articles questioning where did Earth's water come from? I don't understand why it couldn't have always been part of Earth's makeup. Why would another object from space have water if the Earth had none? And why would it dump its water on Earth?

That's one of the things they're trying to push, that there was a water canopy over the Earth that collapsed causing the Flood.

Before then we didn't have as much water, or so they'd have us believe.

It strikes me as desperation, clutching at straws, in this case any bit of theory or hypothesis that helps them maintain a literalist view.

The question is a scientific one not based on religious beliefs. Scientists are stumped as to the origin of water on earth.

Origin of Water On Earth

Regardless of what is said, I have a hard time believing the water was delivered to us.

Huh? They are?

I learned in science class that around the Hadean epoch (era?) we had a super-hot Earth that formed the crusts and released a ton of gases like hydrogen and oxygen in the process of all this molten reactions. When Earth cooled enough we had water. What's so hard about that?

All these goofballs arguing it came from a nebula or comets in outs space, no it came from gases within the Earth which were released while it was molten.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2005/05_35AR.html



1. Earth is unformed (really, molten)
2. Waters from under the Earth.
3. Division of water and sky
4. Division of water and earth, as more water goes into atmosphere.
5. Sprouting plants
6. Animals and eventually humans
7. ???? Profit

Disbelief in Human Evolution Linked to Greater Prejudice and Racism

That is separate from the flood mythology, and I accept that there are legitimate science questions as to where the water originated.

However, your source gives the formation of water long before any flood and Noah's ark myth is supposed to have occurred.

I've been telling ya, the flood is racial memory. Who cares when the flood is "supposed" to exist? Your records are probably millennia awat from mine. Especially since I think our history is far older than we claim.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw

I'm not interested in the delusional rants of a flat earther.

Yeah, you use that as a fallback.

Do you believe people are one-dimensional? That all of a person can be represented by one flaw? Suppose I noticed a blemish on you? You have... *gasp* a pimple. Would it be fair to you to tell everyone in every forum that you discuss, "No use talking to THAT guy, he has a pimple"?