Because the drawings show what the animals looked like when the drawings were made. Check for the dates of drawings like you refer to. Then go and read a book on evolution and check the dates in there. Then realise that your point is invalid. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, that's right - prehistoric man... couldn't draw. It just happened, one day... out of the blue. UGH!
Red Herring; ignores the fact the ‘point’ they had made had been disproved, and makes of the point remark regarding development of art. Suggest you don’t go there until you’ve been round a museum and seen how art developed over history and pre-history.
Funny, though: human skulls and skeletons always seem to look like HUMAN skulls and skeletons... and ape skulls like APE skulls. With the exception, of course, of those times when "science" finds an unusual or deformed ape skull they can't explain and so SPECULATE that it HAS to be human... or an unusual or deformed human skull... and SPECULATE that... well... ALL humans of the time must have looked so (versus some tribal member who was ostracized from the rest purely BECAUSE of such deformity... many primitive people thinking such was a curse... "by the gods"... which would explain why they always only find ONE... and not a tribe of 'em... and then, its always way out in the boondocks of whatever continent they find it on...)
Utter drivel; you must know more about the fossil record than this suggests. Some finds are unique, even if it is for a time. However, very often there are geographically widespread selections of fossils dating to the same period with roughly the same features. More unique finds can be placed in between or after or before know populations due to detailed analysis. Whilst this sometime turns out wrong, there is nothing to break the validity of the generally accepted origin of man; evolution. As religion hasn’t got it right in tens of thousands of years since someone decided ‘Shaman’ meant not getting your hands dirty, evolution with all of its two hundred years NOT can be expected to be a young science. But the fossils are there and the theories fit.
And well, of course, since THEY (scientists) say so... it must BE so. (And yet, some of these same ones... and their followers... chide people who follow religious science... for putting their belief in a written, illustrated, recorded history... as being followers of myths and tales... while scientists tend to use those very same writings, illustrations and records to support their findings. Can we spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s"?)
Things that make you go "hmmmm"....
This is meaningless to me. What do you mean?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Again, your point is invalid. We have observed cases of speciation taking place around us.
And yet, the new species is STILL of the same GENUS. Heck, we've even cloned sheep! But a sheep... is STILL a sheep. Now, when they start cloning rabbits into, say, deer... THEN you've got an argument. (Why rabbits and deer? Because although a different SPECIES... they originate from the same GENUS. So, of course, it should be NOTHING to have a little rabbit, say, over time, "evolve" into a moose, yes?). I'm waiting...
I could probably come up with a statistic to illustrate how unlikely it is a new GENUS will pop up in any one year. The fact it is not observed is meaningless. A speciation is but one small step, given the right selection pressure, to a new genus. We have the evidence in the bones; please don’t do the ‘there are no intermediate fossils gag’, it won’t work, there are and if you think there are not hit the books.
If you’re making a big thing about ‘PROOF’, where is yours? In fact, define 'PROOF'. "Proof," would be TRUE evidence, not that which is speculation or contrived.
Contrived? The mouthpiece for the Lord God of Armies uses the word CONTRIVED without realising the irony? And TRUTH. What is your truth?
At least, that is my definition for purposes of this discussion. Now, MY 'proof' is in earthling man himself: what you see now held up against what has been written, illustrated and recorded about him... then. No change. You mention timeframes. Okay, MY timeframe is the recorded history of man, whether from the Hebrews, the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Africans, the Aborigines, Native Americans... what have you. All have pretty much the same recorded history, at least in terms of timeframe, give or take a couple thousand years. Now YOUR timeframe... has none. You got something to show me from a million years ago? No? A hundred thousand years ago? No? Ten thousand years ago? No? Hmmmm...
Your argument is that if there wasn’t someone there to record it, it didn’t happen. My argument is that that is a load of tosh.
I said why: "science cannot fathom that which it cannot prove empirically..." You do remember that folks... no, let me be specific... SCIENTISTS... were CERTAIN that the earth was flat, don't you? And that man could/would never fly? That the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it? That all animals were dumb (and I don't mean "mute")? You remember what SCIENTISTS thought BEFORE understanding tetonic plate movement and BEFORE understanding the formation of the solar system and BEFORE understanding that the universe was expanding, etc., etc., etc.? To say that science has never been wrong... is to say that the WTBTS has never been wrong. Both contain more "new light" that the entire universe itself can hold.
Yes, science can not prove any thing remotely identifiable as a god doesn’t exist. We won’t go there, it’s an old one and we know the answer, you can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. However, religionists cannot prove god. People might have an individual deistic faith that coincides with the religion they practice, and feel they have some personal validation of the existence of god. But the neither a religion itself, nor any of its believers can prove the truth of that internal validatioon or some other external proof of god's existence to someone. I might believe in an invisible purple kangaroo, but I couldn’t make you believe in a invisible purple kangaroo. The best I could do was to make you believe I believed in an invisible purple kangaroo.
So the fact that scientists have been wrong sometimes is irrelevant, as religionists have, using the same rules, never ever been proved right.
Be careful... because IF you knew your science, you would know that more scientists believe in God than don't... more surgeons and physicians do than don't... that in fact the greatest among these do... and simply refrain from comment on the subject based (1) on their faith, and (2) their inability to explain what cannot, from the sole point of science BE explained... which is, to me, quite wise, give their respective professions.
Aristocratic fallacy/Argument from authority. I don’t care if little green mice believe in god and the great wangdoodle doesn’t. I’m saying there is no proof for god and a lot of proof is there to support a naturalistic origin. You don’t disprove that, you just say, oooo, but he believes in god. Colour me unimpressed.
But if by "religionists" you are meaning ME... you are in total error: I do not believe in religion, I do not support religion, I do not apologize for religion... and would be quite happy to see it go. For all it is to ME... is a means by which deceitful people mislead otherwise good and well-intentioned people... into following them and their beliefs... versus the One who gave his life so that we would follow him... and him only. Which One condemned religion.
Good for you. Forgive if I’m wrong, but don’t you claim to have some sort of hotline to god? Or am I confusing you with someone else>
Provide one Biblical proof that shows that god would be unprovable in the modern age. By "science", and since we've included it, by "religion"? Sure! Certainly! In fact, I'll give you a few:
Matthew 13:13-15; no. doesn’t say god would be unprovable
Jeremiah 5:21; no. doesn’t say god would be unprovable
Ezekiel 12:2; no. doesn’t say god would be unprovable
Mark 4:12; no. doesn’t say god would be unprovable
John 12:40 no. doesn’t say god would be unprovable
Pardon me, but don’t you think what with sending his son and having dead people run around a world capital and Red Seas parting and all that happening all that time ago like people SAY it did, if there was going to be ZERO proof of god in the modern age, it is one, kind of convenient and two, something they would of mentioned (don’t come on with that ‘will pass away scripture’ either), and three, illogical, and four, unreasonable.
Remember you have to base your answer on the basis that god is love and desires that none pass away.
He is, in fact, QUITE provable.
I’m waiting. So has humanity. For a long time. Is it okay if we breath?
Provide explainations of why our sexual biology is incompatible with Biblical moral codes
Now, here, I would have to advise you to speak... for yourself. Just because YOU may not be able to control yourself doesn't mean EVERYONE can't. Personally, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion, as I know MANY people who adhere to the "code" (which is their right to do so, if they so chose. It is not their right, however, to impose it upon others...)
If a man is away from his regular sexual partner for a few days, even if he masturbates or has sex with another person, when he has sex with his partner again will ejaculate far more than usual. The Bible says god wants us to be monogamous. Our sexual biology is clearly developed on the assumption that whilst you’re away someone else might be mowing the lawn, thus the excess of ejaculate to try and overwhelm any other guy’s wrigglers. Shall we do homosexuality and twin studies nest? If the Bible doesn’t even know how we are made to work, then it isn’t written under inspiration.