Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[redmarvel]

I read the link. We have a tail bone, which is a vestigial organ. That means our ancestors had tails. Yes or no?

If yes, that means that our ancestors had a tail and God has a tail since he created our ancestors in his image.

If no, that means God gave us a tail bone for no reason what so ever....meaning he is imperfect. There is no reason for us to have a tailbone.

Just because we do not know the purpose of the tail bone doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.

Also, we were "created in His image", does not mean we look EXACTLY like Him. Since we can not look upon the face of God, yet we can obviously look at each other, we definitly do not look exactly like Him.

 

[chaseter]

We know the purpose of a tail bone...we once had tails. It's not that hard.

Which do you think is right? The logical one with scientific theory behind it and extremely high plausibility or the one where you guess what a deity did?

 

[childeroland]

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

That's from the so-called Second Issiah, which is dated around the 6th Century BCE -- when Greek scholars well before Aristotle were already alluding to the Earth being spherical.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This argument is nonsensical.

God had a tail. The end.

 

[NateHevens]

I am well aware that my opinion isn't the popular one, but it's what I believe and I have the faith God created everything. I don't pretend to know why He created everything the way He did, but it's not for me to question. I'm sure that some people will attack my intelligence level, but that's OK. I don't have anything to prove to anyone.

It's not about your intelligence level. You could very well have the potential to give Stephen Hawking a run for his money for all we know. The thing that's infuriating is that you refuse to use it.

I'm not offended by it at all, it's just not what I believe. It's quite simple, God created man and woman because He spoke it, and it happened. Nothing complex about it.

But... why do you believe this? What purpose does this serve?

If you just don't care, then why not simply be agnostic about exactly where humans came from and just not care?

Nah, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. Like I said, it's not for me to question why God did things the way He did.

This has noting to do with you specifically, but I hate this mindset so much it's not even funny.

Curiosity is how the human race has progressed for 200,000 years.

Look at it like this:
You believe that God directly created us, right? Well, he created your brain. In every human brain God put an inquisitive nature, since humans are naturally inquisitive.

Considering that, maybe God does want you to question. Maybe it is for you to question how and why. Have you ever thought about it like that?

Because of everything I can see, smell, touch and hear. That's where faith comes into play. Like I said, there's nothing complex about it. He said everything into existance and it just 'is'.

See, this I always found funny. The reason I don't believe in a higher power or powers is because of everything I can see, smell, touch and hear combined with all of that we can't see, smell, touch, or hear, yet can still detect. I don't believe our universe resembles one that was created by an intelligent higher power.

Nah, that's OK. Thank you for the suggestion though. I've been around a long time and have seen and heard theories on evolution, but it's just not what I believe in. Just like you don't believe in God (at least that's what I assume from reading the few posts that I have read of yours) and nothing that you watch or listen to would ever change your mind. Know what I mean? It kind of works both ways.

And this is something else I find infuriating. You don't even want to try and alleviate your ignorance about evolution. You're happy with the strawvolution fed to you by... who? Your parents? Teachers? Clergy?

Why is this?

Just because I don't have the same beliefs that you guys do, doesn't make me any less of a man/human being. That's also the beauty of humans, we are different in many ways. It would be a boring place if we were all EXACTLY the same.

Nobody's disagreeing, though.

The reason I personally am terrified by the fact that 46% of US-Americans are Young-Earth Creationists is because I believe education is the most important thing there is. Education is how a society survives. And the fact that 46% of US-Americans are Young-Earth Creationists is just another piece of evidence that proves an incredibly disturbing fact about our educational system: that it's failing, miserably.

I mean, I don't expect Young-Earth Creationism to ever go away, but in a better world, it would be about as common as Flat-Earthers and Geocentrists (both of which are rather tiny minorities, at least in the US).

“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”

- Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan is one of my heroes.

To add to this

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

Lawrence Krauss Theoretical Physicist

Its a beautiful concept, and one that puts a smile on my face.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Lawrence Krauss, but that is an incredible concept, IMO.

I believe in God and I urge you to open your mind. Your opening statement in here was that we evolved from monkeys and then asked why monkeys are still around. That means you aren't educated on the matter and I strongly urge you to do so. Evolution doesn't dismiss God or intelligent design. It can easily be God's mechanism for why humans exist. The Bible is not literal and if you take it as literal then your religion falls apart. If you bring reason and science into the Bible, it can be a perfectly fine inspirational tool. If you take it as a strict instruction manual of historical facts then you are robbing yourself and your kids or future kids of any chances at intellectual advancement. Just open your mind. Man is the one saying that evolution contradicts God and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Man ruins religion. Just open your mind.

I'd argue that evolution can be a threat to your faith, depending on the kind of faith you have. I think evolution makes the concept of a personal god that micro-manages our daily lives and answers prayers somewhat defunct.

When we're finally able to answer the question of where life comes from (which I expect in my lifetime, BTW), only Deistic concepts of a higher power will be intellectually tenable if the answer is purely natural.

When we finally answer the question of what caused the Big Bang (that I am most definitely not expecting in my lifetime... unfortunately), if that answer turns out to be natural, then, and only then, will all faith in a higher power become intellectually untenable, making atheism the default position. But I doubt this'll happen for millenia.

 

[Bill]

Nah, that's OK. Thank you for the suggestion though. I've been around a long time and have seen and heard theories on evolution, but it's just not what I believe in. Just like you don't believe in God (at least that's what I assume from reading the few posts that I have read of yours) and nothing that you watch or listen to would ever change your mind. Know what I mean? It kind of works both ways.

Obviously not that long. If you don't want to accept Evolution, then that's fine. But I wish people wouldn't insult those who do by claiming they've done some degree of research into it or have "seen or heard theories on it." With every word you write, it's obvious you either don't know what you're talking about or you're reading information by people who don't know what they're talking about.

And that some have taken the methods and findings of science to view the physical world means precisely the opposite of "nothing that you watch or listen to would ever change your mind." Science is a discipline that requires you to change your mind if findings meet the requirements of what it considers to be empirical evidence. It's not the scientists who refuse to change their minds in the face of contradictory evidence, its the fundamentalists who require that their interpretation of dogma remain unhindered in the face of it.

I would rather people of your ilk be honest enough to admit you don't really care what Science states, and leave your head in the sand of your Bible. If that is what makes you happy, then leave it at that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I just began working toward a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and population genetics this past week, so it shouldn't be difficult to see where I stand on this issue.

However, I view the question to be somewhat flawed. If the question was intended to assess whether people believe that evolution occurs, then my answer is an emphatic yes.

If, on the other hand, the question was intended to assess whether people agree with current evolutionary theory, which serves as a mechanistic explanation for how evolution occurs rather than postulation about whether or not it does occur, then my answer must be a tentative yes.

It may seem pedantic, but making the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution tends to take on great importance when one considers that many are either unwilling or unable to make that distinction for themselves.

 

[rodhulk]

That's from the so-called Second Issiah, which is dated around the 6th Century BCE -- when Greek scholars well before Aristotle were already alluding to the Earth being spherical.

It doesn't matter what others have said and when... since creationists/christians believe in the Bible, it's the Bible that has to get it right.... and it did!

 

[childeroland]

It doesn't matter what others have said and when... since creationists/christians believe in the Bible, it's the Bible that has to get it right.... and it did!

EDIT: Of course it matters. The poster I was responding to was stating Biblical writers--at least Isaiah-- knew of a spherical earth before the ancient Greeks. But he/she is wrong, since around the time that verse was written, a spherical Earth was already becoming common knowledge. And if the Bible has to get it right because Christians believe in it, how do you explain all the things it did not get right?

 

[rodhulk]

I read the link. We have a tail bone, which is a vestigial organ. That means our ancestors had tails. Yes or no?

If yes, that means that our ancestors had a tail and God has a tail since he created our ancestors in his image.

If no, that means God gave us a tail bone for no reason what so ever....meaning he is imperfect. There is no reason for us to have a tailbone.

Well, if you read the link, it establishes that the tail bone helps us. Can't remember off hand if it was that link or not but it was also said that without the tail bone, we would have problems walking. So, God could have created the tail bone in man simply because it's the perfect organ that gives man the necessary ability to walk. If it's not in that link I'll try to find the proper link.

Until evolution can show with 100% certainty through observation in some way that man indeed had tails so many generations ago, it's still just a theory on evolutions part.

 

[rodhulk]

Based on what evidence aside from your own assertion?

What are you talking about?

 

[childeroland]

What are you talking about?

The assertion that it doesn't matter what others have said and when because the Bible got it right. I edited my response to specify what I meant.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, if you read the link, it establishes that the tail bone helps us. Can't remember off hand if it was that link or not but it was also said that without the tail bone, we would have problems walking. So, God could have created the tail bone in man simply because it's the perfect organ that gives man the necessary ability to walk. If it's not in that link I'll try to find the proper link.

Until evolution can show with 100% certainty through observation in some way that man indeed had tails so many generations ago, it's still just a theory on evolutions part.

Yet oddly, we have yet to find any 6,000 year old humans with tails. The people on the cave paintings also don't seem to have tails (while the other animals on them do).

 

[Greens]

Well, if you read the link, it establishes that the tail bone helps us. Can't remember off hand if it was that link or not but it was also said that without the tail bone, we would have problems walking. So, God could have created the tail bone in man simply because it's the perfect organ that gives man the necessary ability to walk. If it's not in that link I'll try to find the proper link.

Until evolution can show with 100% certainty through observation in some way that man indeed had tails so many generations ago, it's still just a theory on evolutions part.

Human embryos actually have tails for a short period of time (not relevant but still interesting). It's a fact that the tailbone is from a lost tail. It hasn't disappeared because it still serves different purposes, but it's not THE perfect organ for walking.

Okay maybe it's not a fact, but why do you care so much?

 

[rodhulk]

That's just defining closet as anything that won't fit into what you want to promote. Rival faiths could say the same as you, so unless you're giving equal possibility to them -- that is, unless Satan is not deceiving them -- that idea doesn't work. I don't want to "go there" because it is not backed up by evidence.

Visual impressions without corroboration are not evidence, unless mythological carvings of the Picts, etc means that the Druid God might exist. And what about the art of rival faiths?

No they don't. They are so vague they could be linked to any event and said to be fulfilled. If prophecy is evidential, what about Islamic prophecies that have also said to be fulfilled? Are they true also?

Yes you did; I quotes your post where you used that term. And all dogs are a subspecies of the gray wolf -- breeding is not a "micro" form of speciation. Speciation is an evolutionary process giving rise to new species. I have already linked to evidence of speciation in previous posts. Other examples: (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1690834) (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1690834)
(http://www.genetics.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12663534)
There are dozens and dozens of others, if one looks for them.

More assertions. Other faiths would say the same about their God and deception. What makes you right and them wrong? I did not deviate; go back and read my post to see this. You claimed Satan is deceiving people of other faiths. I asked you why is Satan deceiving them and not you. You said Christians are deceived sometimes. I said we were talking about people being deceived into being of other faiths, not just "sometimes." Since you never answered that, I would say it is you who is "caught," unless you actually have evidence that Satan is deceiving people of other faiths and not you.

The same could be said of other faiths and their scriptures. What makes them false and you true -- you can't all be right. Everyday suffering is not evidential of your view -- why not turn to the Hindu goddess of healing, or to the Greek god of healing? Why can't it be Kali making people suffer and not Satan? Or the asuras of Hinduism? What is the evidence that it is Satan and not, say, Kroni, the devil-figure of South India's Avvyavazhi

That's just a cop out. What have these people missed and you have not?

That's not evidence, just another assertion. Without corroboration, WHY can't it be ignored? What about other mythological art depicting interactions with fairies, monsters, etc? Are they historical documents also? What about Islamic art depicting Muhammad's religious experiences? Or art from other cultures and religions concerning their traditions? Can they be ignored? If they can, why?

I did no such thing. Go back and actually read my post. I posited a what-if that, given the evidence, is more possible than your assertion that humans and dinosaurs shared the earth. And the paleontological evidence -- actual hard evidence, not a visual impression -- precludes the artist seeing a living dinosaur. And given that the preponderance of evidence is that Job is not a historical document (however taken by the Biblical canonizers) but a mythological work cobbled from two separate works written centuries apart -- evidence for which I also cited -- the Job poet almost certainly "recorded" nothing. If he did, where is the evidence outside of the document itself?

Of course science keeps the artwork from being seen as evidence without corroboration. Because without that science, you have nothing but a visual impression telling you what you want to be true -- that humans walked with dinosaurs. Unfortunately, independently verifiable fossil evidence says otherwise. That IS "real world thinking," not the magical thinking that vague visual impressions without corroboration are. Science relies not on "perfection" but on ever-refined theories that encompass observations of phenomena. Christians claiming the Bible being perfect does not make it so, particularly given its massive amounts of internal contradictions and inconsistencies. What is the difference between those claims and the claims of Muslims about the Quran? You can't both be right -- so why are you right and they wrong? Of course science is concrete -- it is "this looks like a dinosaur, therefore dinosaurs walked with humans" that is not concrete, as opposed to the concrete mass of paleontological evidence contradicting Baugh's claim that humans and dinosaurs shared the earth. Science isn't a single line of thought that has a viable alternative. What "facts" does the Bible confirm?

Absolutely not! You said yourself science doesn't consider things like artwork, UFO footage, Bible prophecy, visual impressions, etc... as any evidence to form a conclusion. That means.... closet!

If you're open to look at everything outside of the closet, you'll see the possibilities in this world a lot more clearer and you'll look at science a lot harder to make sure that what it says, it really is that way. I agree that science doesn't prove man existed with dinos but equally, science doesn't prove that man didn't exist with dinos either.

Prophecy isn't vague like you say. Israel becoming a nation in one day is as clear as anything you could show me in science. The Jews returning from all over the world is as clear as anything you can show me in science. I'm concerned about the Bible and the Bible alone "has" to get the prophecies right and my studies have shown that.

As for me using the words micro and speciation, please repost my quote that you say you have quoted. Until then, I don't "think" I said it. I did say macro and speciation, however and have already said I could be wrong about that so it was kinda pointless to go on about it. But I'll see if I can find alink that actually says macro and speciation. If not, then that's fine as I already said. What still stands is that the "after it's kind" is very clear as we have had no new species despite your claims.

What makes me stick to my faith and not others... because of the truth get out of it everyday such as Bible prophecy... when (if) the Bible collapses, I will question it, until then.......

No cop out either, my friend. What have I got that others haven't, well, I seriously look to the Bible and God as my final authority. If a christian or supposed christian falls into the trap of the world and accepts sinful stuff the Bible mentions such as abortion, foul language, ect.... then they are not following the God of the Bible. Whether or not they are actual christians is between them and God but their salvation can be in doubt as accoding tothe scriptures.

Again, I will continue to go on, what Braugh and the other showed were evidence or at least something that can't be ignored but you see, you're in the closet of science and unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to see the fullness of the possibilities out there. Have you studied every single piece of dino (?) artwork? Have you studied every piece of UFO sightings? Have you studied every piece of prophecy? If not, then how can you give any honest answer to them as being pieces of evidence?

And you did absolutely bring up the question on the dino artwork as somebody possibly having seen a fossil.

Science is still a single line of thought as it doesn't consider other things like artowork, prophecy, ect.... What ahs the Bible said as fact.... well, something brought up just recently, that the earth is round......

Also funny how you avoided the area where you said that christians aren't being deceived yet I showed you that they were. Sure you're not entirely happy with the answer but I still answered that they were.

 

[rodhulk]

The assertion that it doesn't matter what others have said and when because the Bible got it right. I edited my response to specify what I meant.

The things the Bible you say didn't get right is outside of the original thing we were talking about (again deviating from the subject)... and that was that the Bible has to get things right.. and it did with the circle of the earth.

 

[TheGuy]

Human embryos actually have tails for a short period of time (not relevant but still interesting). It's a fact that the tailbone is from a lost tail. It hasn't disappeared because it still serves different purposes, but it's not THE perfect organ for walking.

Okay maybe it's not a fact, but why do you care so much?

Yep.

 

[rodhulk]

Human embryos actually have tails for a short period of time (not relevant but still interesting). It's a fact that the tailbone is from a lost tail. It hasn't disappeared because it still serves different purposes, but it's not THE perfect organ for walking.

Okay maybe it's not a fact, but why do you care so much?

There you go, it's not a fact. And why not ask all the evolutionists why they care so much, too?

The reason "I" care is because I like talking about the truth or what I believe it to be.

And maybe the tail bone isn't the perfect ogan, maybe it is, but it is "suitable" as is evidence with our daily life.

 

[Greens]

No cop out either, my friend. What have I got that others haven't, well, I seriously look to the Bible and God as my final authority. If a christian or supposed christian falls into the trap of the world and accepts sinful stuff the Bible mentions such as abortion, foul language, ect.... then they are not following the God of the Bible. Whether or not they are actual christians is between them and God but their salvation can be in doubt as accoding tothe scriptures.

Accepting everything in the Bible as fact without thinking about the matter critically and rationally is unhealthy.

I guess you think homosexuality is bad too, huh?

 

[NateHevens]

Until evolution can show with 100% certainty through observation in some way that man indeed had tails so many generations ago, it's still just a theory on evolutions part.

rodhulk, I've been staying out of your conversation because the debate is finally starting to get on my nerves.

But could you please do me a favor? Could you, for the love of all things real, learn what a frickin' scientific theory is?

I am so sick and tired of seeing people use this word as if it means "wild drunken rambling" or whatever. This is not what it means. Get the word right or don't use it at all.

 

[childeroland]

The things the Bible you say didn't get right is outside of the original thing we were talking about (again deviating from the subject)... and that was that the Bible has to get things right.. and it did with the circle of the earth.

No they aren't. I was responding to your post which was a response to my post concerning the post of another user, which had nothing to do with our debate. I made the most recent post in our debate. EDIT: Just saw your most recent post.

 

[nogster]

Well, if you read the link, it establishes that the tail bone helps us. Can't remember off hand if it was that link or not but it was also said that without the tail bone, we would have problems walking. So, God could have created the tail bone in man simply because it's the perfect organ that gives man the necessary ability to walk. If it's not in that link I'll try to find the proper link.

Until evolution can show with 100% certainty through observation in some way that man indeed had tails so many generations ago, it's still just a theory on evolutions part.

Why is that your beliefs of a young earth and Dino's and man living together does not need to meet the same unobtainable burden of proof you demand of evolution.

If you used the same logic to deny evolution, The same demand of observed empirical evidence, on your creationist belief, you wouldnt be a creationist.

How can you not see the hypocrisy in your logic?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I read the link. We have a tail bone, which is a vestigial organ. That means our ancestors had tails. Yes or no?

If yes, that means that our ancestors had a tail and God has a tail since he created our ancestors in his image.

If no, that means God gave us a tail bone for no reason what so ever....meaning he is imperfect. There is no reason for us to have a tailbone.

You have to be very careful when discussing so-called "vestigial" organs. An organ or anatomical trait that has been altered through evolutionary time, even diminished, is not necessarily vestigial in the traditional sense: it may still serve a purpose that is different from its original purpose.

There is still some debate, for example, over the vestigiality of the human appendix. This organ is known to be useful in plant-eating vertebrate species as a sort of fermentation chamber that aids in the digestion of cellulose-rich food sources. It does not perform this function in humans, and has been reduced in size. It was classified as vestigial until we began to realize that it may play a role in the function of the human immune system. So is it truly vestigial?

We could compare this example to that of reduced leg and hip bones present in cetaceans (whales and dolphins). It is incredibly difficult to devise a scenario in which this completely internal structure plays any important role in the functional biology of the organism as a whole. We can be reasonably comfortable calling this structure vestigial by comparison.

Still, we should be careful when considering whether any of these reduced structures perform any useful function(s). It may well be that the human tailbone plays some role in bipedal locomotion. If I were to guess, I'd say that it's possible that it has something to do with the sinusoidal pattern of movement present in virtually all vertebrates (most of which possess a muscular, post-anal tail) from fish to lizards to even mammals. With respect to why the great ape lineage actually lost their tails, I can't speculate. That just isn't my field.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Absolutely not! You said yourself science doesn't consider things like artwork, UFO footage, Bible prophecy, visual impressions, etc... as any evidence to form a conclusion. That means.... closet!

If you're open to look at everything outside of the closet, you'll see the possibilities in this world a lot more clearer and you'll look at science a lot harder to make sure that what it says, it really is that way. I agree that science doesn't prove man existed with dinos but equally, science doesn't prove that man didn't exist with dinos either.

Would you please do me a favor and define "science" in your own words? I'm curious as to what you think science actually is.

 

[childeroland]

Absolutely not! You said yourself science doesn't consider things like artwork, UFO footage, Bible prophecy, visual impressions, etc... as any evidence to form a conclusion. That means.... closet!

No I didn't. I said science doesn't consider these things without corroboration. That doesn't mean closet, it means you need more than just visual impressions in order to be persuasive.

If you're open to look at everything outside of the closet, you'll see the possibilities in this world a lot more clearer and you'll look at science a lot harder to make sure that what it says, it really is that way. I agree that science doesn't prove man existed with dinos but equally, science doesn't prove that man didn't exist with dinos either.

Defining science as a "closet" over and over does not make it so. Unless we're opening ourselves to all possibilities, including those of rival faiths. If not, what makes you right and them wrong? Wouldn't adherents of rival faiths say you are cutting yourself off from the possibilities because you insist THEY are being deceived and you are not? If they are being deceived, on what basis do you make that claim?

Prophecy isn't vague like you say. Israel becoming a nation in one day is as clear as anything you could show me in science. The Jews returning from all over the world is as clear as anything you can show me in science. I'm concerned about the Bible and the Bible alone "has" to get the prophecies right and my studies have shown that.

Again, point me to a specific prophecy and show me its fulfillment. And if prophecy is evidential, what about the Islamic prophecies that Muslims believe in that they would say were fulfilled?

As for me using the words micro and speciation, please repost my quote that you say you have quoted. Until then, I don't "think" I said it. I did say macro and speciation, however and have already said I could be wrong about that so it was kinda pointless to go on about it. But I'll see if I can find alink that actually says macro and speciation. If not, then that's fine as I already said. What still stands is that the "after it's kind" is very clear as we have had no new species despite your claims.

Your post: "The only micro and macro and speciation that I can tell you I believe has happened is changes inside of a family or species, that is, a new breed of dog or fruit fly, but they all remain what they already were. This has been observed. Anything else like a change to a complete new family or species, I don't think has happened and so everything has only changed "after it's kind." (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=24206417&highlight=micro+speciation#post24206417) And I have already posted links documenting speciation observed and documented, so they are not just my claims. Did you even read them?

What makes me stick to my faith and not others... because of the truth get out of it everyday such as Bible prophecy... when (if) the Bible collapses, I will question it, until then.......

That's what adherents to other faiths say too. Faiths that can't be reconciled with Christianity. Why are they wrong and you right?

No cop out either, my friend. What have I got that others haven't, well, I seriously look to the Bible and God as my final authority. If a christian or supposed christian falls into the trap of the world and accepts sinful stuff the Bible mentions such as abortion, foul language, ect.... then they are not following the God of the Bible. Whether or not they are actual christians is between them and God but their salvation can be in doubt as accoding tothe scriptures.

That has nothing to do with whether or not Satan is deceiving adherents of other faiths all the time and not adherents to your faith, which was your assertion when you said yes, sometimes Christians can get in a closet. We weren't talking about Christians sinning but about the truth claims of their faith vs. the truth claims of others, which you said were the result of Satan deceiving them.

Again, I will continue to go on, what Braugh and the other showed were evidence or at least something that can't be ignored but you see, you're in the closet of science and unfortunately, it doesn't allow you to see the fullness of the possibilities out there. Have you studied every single piece of dino (?) artwork? Have you studied every piece of UFO sightings? Have you studied every piece of prophecy? If not, then how can you give any honest answer to them as being pieces of evidence?

Baugh showed no evidence, as visual impressions without corroboration are not evidential or indicative of the "fullness of possibilities." Again, simply stating science is in a "closet" -- which presumably doesn't include the science that allowed Baugh to date the artwork or accept its dating -- does not make it so. Hard scientific data vs. "This looks like that...because it does." Have you studied the documented evidence I pointed to? Evidence that the great majority of evolutionary agree upon? If we are getting down to repeated "closet" references and "Have you studied EVERY piece of artwork supposedly depicting dinosaurs..."

And you did absolutely bring up the question on the dino artwork as somebody possibly having seen a fossil.

As a possibility that is more real than the possibility of humans walking with dinosaurs, based on the evidence.

Science is still a single line of thought as it doesn't consider other things like artowork, prophecy, ect.... What ahs the Bible said as fact.... well, something brought up just recently, that the earth is round......

Science considers things based on evidence, which prophecy, "dino" artwork, etc does not show. That is a massive discipline, not a "single line of thought" with a viable alternative in creationism.

Also funny how you avoided the area where you said that christians aren't being deceived yet I showed you that they were. Sure you're not entirely happy with the answer but I still answered that they were.

No you didn't. You talked about being deceived in terms of their daily lives, mistakes, etc, when we were talking about Satan deceiving people of rivals faiths as an answer to my question of what makes your faith's truth claims true and others false. You keep avoiding my simple question: What makes the truth claims of rival faiths false but yours true? You answered that Satan was deceiving them. When I said why is Satan is deceiving them and not you, you said Christians WERE sometimes deceived but went off on another tangent about how Christians can be deceived about relatively smaller things. We were talking about them being deceived into BEING Christians.

So let's just reduce this to some simple questions.
1) Why is it that evolution, with its mass of evidence, requires more evidence but a possible visual resemblance to a dinosaur without any corroboration is viable evidence -- against the mass of paleontological evidence that says otherwise -- that dinosaurs and humans shared the earth?
2) Same with the Job poem. Why does the work itself constitute evidence of the historicity of its contents against the mass of evidence that a) dinosaurs died 65 million years before the Job poet lived, b) that the work is cobbled from two different documents written centuries apart c) the poet was likely talking about existing creatures contemporaneous with him.
3) What is the difference in viability between the truth claims of one faith and those of others? If Satan is deceiving adherents to other faiths, why is he not deceiving adherents to yours? By what evidence? I don't mean deceiving them into sin or whatever, I mean deceiving them into believing their core faiths.