#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Physical - visual - proof of evolution.
True.
Side Score: 211
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 259
|
|
I've never jumped at end times messages, although I had an awareness of end times. But now is, so you may want to take some time to listen and see for yourself. A closed mind can't see or hear, so if God is trying you reach you, He is knocking, but He will only show you if you open the door! 1 Peter says one day is as 1000 years, and 1000 years as one day. And he says that in context of the Lord is not slack on His promises regarding His return. If you look at creation story 6 days on the 7th He rested. Each year represents 1000 years of God's work in the world. Fulfilling prophesies and moving His purpose through time. We are in year 6000. The 6th day, "day of creation of man" Cain was marked, his 6th generation had doubled Cain's evil, and had declared vengeance x 70 x 7. Evil and violence grew, man became violent continuously. God said He saw the end of flesh. We are there again! Then, Noah entered the Ark in his 600th year. Jesus said "it will be just like the days of Noah. " What we see around us is every indication that we are in it. Jesus was clear what to look for. If you can't see it, ask God to show you. Video attached very enjoyable. This guy brings intellect and science into what the Bible says, and presents it all very well. I ran into this guy's videos over the weekend, he is teaching on everything God has been personally showing me for months. He also has a series on YouTube - "24 hours to learn the Bible," - insight galore! This is end times light, things God seems to be opening up. This is not basic teaching, it's rich! It's crazy when God shows you a bunch of things you never saw before in scripture, then see He is randomly showing others you never heard of before, and they are seeing the same things He has been showing you. This one will hopefully inspire you to watch his 24 hour series. He'll knock your sock off! You have received a YouTube video! http://www.youtube.com/ . Side: True.
You're going off into all this Nephalim stuff if you follow Missler. I've studied a lot of that stuff. It's a mistake to believe that kind of stuff is conclusive. It goes against the Bible which clearly says God made the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. The Nephalim stuff is a whole different story. "Nephalim", or "aliens" or whatever you want to call them are demonic in origin, and the devil is the father of lies. They will present themselves in a falsehood and people who think they know things which are not in the Bible and contradict things in the Bible are being deceived. The whole thing is a deception. Your pride is being fueled to make you think you have special insight, it's the mistake of people like Missler and Ross and Calvinism. You are following doctrines of men. It's better to look at Missler, while he thinks he knows what he is talking about, and say "I don't know about that, I'll stick with what the Bible says and trust nothing presented by beings which operate against the word of God. You are making the divisions you claim to be against. All your fake modern Bible versions and UFOs, claiming you have special insight and acting like you are on a mission to tell all Christians to follow the people you are following instead of holding fast to the word of God. You are compromising with evolutionary scientists and with people who believe in aliens. There is no big bang, no billions of years, no gap theory....that stuff is all contrived and all contradicts the Bible. It's better to stick with the Bible. God will not blame anybody for holding to His word and rejecting doctrines of men which seek to add to His revealed word. False teachers will not be innocent. Side: True.
God showed me everything over months, I never heard or saw chuck missler till last weekend. And I didn't get any inspiration on what God was showing me. The Spirit kept leading me to study and write out each verse. And He showed me similar things. So my revelation did not come from man, it came from His Spirit teaching me personally. And I do not exclude you from faith because God didn't show you the same. Our foundation of truth is this He is the Way Truth and Life, One Way through the cross and Resurrection . If one brother can't eat pork because his faith is weak, then I accept he can't in conscience eat pork. But me, I can eat pork just not to the point of stumbling for my weaker of faith regarding foods brother. So I do not force you from your view, but I also can't limit God's revelation by your view. And to me the issue is not an issue of divide. God is showing alot in these days. In the last days we will see Him as He is, the Book will unroll and show us many things. But we will be known by our love of the brethern, and we will separate and expose the false prophets and teachers who deny Christ, and His work of Salvation in our lives. Because that is the way, the door, the only door, on which our entire faith sits upon. So it's up to you if you divide over the things God reveals in these last of the last days. If His depth is unreachable, and in His Word are hidden treasures, then do you think fresh Revelations meant for our times, may also contradict the doctrines and traditions of men? Aren't they boxes of divisions, categorizing people to one box or another? So how does God fit in a box? And why in Revelations is Jesus standing on the church step knocking on the door? Did they leave someone important out? . Side: True.
Ok, so you decided on your own to merge evolutioin/big bang teaching. It's very easy to do in a society which programs it's children from toddlers on up to believe in billions of years and/or evolution. You have merged it with the Bible, nothing new. To claim you were not influenced by people in this is ludicrous. You never would have dreamed this stuff if you had not been fed evolution all your life. It's not the Holy Spirit giving you this stuff which contradicts the word of God. The Holy Spirit teaches nothing contrary to or independent of scripture, this gap theory and billions of years or evolution or whatever you are doing is contrary to the Bible. Then you fall back on this "we will be known by our love", which is garbage when you are using it to try to lord over me with your gap theory heresies. You are letting a spirit which is not holy pump up your head so you keep saying "I" "I" "I"....I learned this, God is showing me this, I can tell you what God is showing me...it's all about your special insight in your mind. Then with your pumped up head you think you have all this stuff to teach me in every area of the Bible. You're a baby Christian, being led into things which are out of line with God's word. God's revelation is His Word, and it never contradicts His Word. You are making the division with this stuff. You're not the queen of heaven, sorry. Side: True.
God showed me everything over months, I never heard or saw chuck missler till last weekend. And I didn't get any inspiration from anywhere on what God was showing me. The Spirit kept leading me to study and write out each verse. And He showed me similar things that Chuck Missler was teaching on. And that is confirmation that I am seeing things others are seeing. So my revelation did not come from man, it came from His Spirit teaching me personally. I do not exclude you from faith because God didn't show you the same things as me. The unity of faith is our foundation of truth. It is this, He is the Way Truth and Life, He is the One Way through the Cross and Resurrection. That is the Revelation of Salvation. When we understand that by our experience of the testimony of The Spirit. If one brother can't eat pork because his faith is weaker, then we accept he can't in conscience eat pork. I can eat pork, just not to the stumbling of those who are weaker of faith regarding foods. So I do not force you away from your view, but I also can't limit God's revelation and whatbHe gives me by your view. And to me the issue of 24 hours is not a divisive doctrine. It's like arguing over circumcision. It's not a concern. God is showing alot in these days. In the last days we will see Him as He is, the Book will unroll and show us many things. But we will be known by our love of the brethern, and we will separate and expose the false prophets and teachers who deny Christ, and His work of Salvation in our lives. Because that is the way, the door, the only door, on which our entire faith sits upon. So it's up to you if you divide over the things God reveals in these last of the last days. If His depth is unreachable, and in His Word are hidden treasures, then do you think fresh Revelations meant for our times, may also contradict the doctrines and traditions of men? Aren't they boxes of divisions, categorizing people to one box or another? So how does God fit in a box? And why in Revelations is Jesus standing on the church step knocking on the door? Did they leave someone important out?. I never was one to box God into a doctrine. It is as it reads. That's all. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
In Revelation 3:20 where Jesus is standing at the door, knocking ( "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."....quoted from the real English Bible), it's a personal invitation to each individual to receive and fellowship with the Savior. It is not picturing a wizard with new magic for the church in the end times, it is not offering new revelations which contradict God's word. We have God's word. We do not have a license to add to God's word, or take away from it, or introduce doctrines of men which contradict God's word. Your gap theory and its proponents ignore Exodus where God Himself audibly spoke for all of Israel to hear, "Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Either you believe God's word or you believe doctrines of men which add to God's word, contradicting God's word, and that spirit leading you into such things is not holy, it is not from God, it's a deceiving spirit making you think you are something special more that what you really are. You are not one of God's chosen instruments for new revelation for the end times, and neither is Missler or Ross. The devil is playing you to cause divisions and distract away from the simple truth of the gospel by which people can be saved from Hell. You are focusing on things outside of the Lord's command to preach the gospel and make disciples. You are trying to make disciples for your own doctrine, a doctrine you claim to be the source of, a doctrine of one woman programmed from her youth by evolution and big bang ungodliness and then she claims it came from God even though it contradicts God's word. Your doctrine is a doctrine of one woman, in tune with the doctrine of a group of men who believe in the gap theory and/or theistic evolution, both of which contradict the word of God.......and both of which cause it's adherents to get a big head and think they are all that plus a bag of chips. Side: True.
Here Jesus is healing on the Sabbath and tells them the 7th Day Sabbath has more than they know. He starts with healing on the Sabbath, than He says He and the Father are still working. He was telling us we work till the end with He and the Father. But His Yoke is Easy and His burden is Light! Compared to the yoke of Satan and the slavery that is under the belly of the serpent. Matt 11 25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” John 5 Now it was the Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.” 11 But he answered them, “He who made me well was the one who said to me, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk’?” 13 But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus *found him in the temple and said to him, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.” 15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. 25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
There are already divisions caused by doctrines of men. Go back to Gideon a remnant cupped the water and drank with their own hands. Do a study, Jesus wants to lead the sheep, doctrines of men lead the sheep away from pastures and living water. The sheep have starved under their care! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Indeed. The ongoing and very visible and tangible evolution of life forms like bacteria and viruses are simply two examples of how all living things evolve. Including us. Including all other species of animals. Including flora. It's pure unadulterated observable science. Period. There IS no alternative theories or even hypotheses in science today. The only other explanation on how life came to be on this planet comes from the Creationists. In other words, from those who have been indoctrinated and in fact deceived by mythology and superstition. They live in a perpetual and all-encompassing world of denial and fantasy. They have invented gods who actually care about them and help them and offer them a magical afterlife. This is simply the evolved minds's defense mechanism for dealing with the fate of death that awaits us all. Some people cannot handle that fact. So they invent adult versions of those invisible childhood friends which most of us outgrew. And to this I say, "fine." So be it.Whatever gets you through the night. It is only when they try to use their superstitions and mythos and disinformation as a replacement for reason and logic and proven science that I take umbrage. And I am not alone. There is a reason that schools do not allow Creationist nonsense in their Biology classes any longer SS http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/ Side: True.
Those bacteria did not evolve, they are still bacteria. The did not change into worms or birds. Talk about living in a delusion...bacteria adapting to changes in the environment proves that your great great grandma was cousin to your common primate ancestor? Where is she now? Planet of the Apes in the Twilight Zone, tweaking bacteria in a culture dish so they turn into chickens and granny uses the eggs to hire ape slave labor? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time, Saint. You know this. Ask your doctor. Or look it up. Why do you think we have these so-called Super Bugs? They evolve and mutate so as to become resistant to anti-biotics, which have been recklessly over-prescribed by the medical community for decades. Viruses do the same thing. Given enough time...long after you and I are gone, they could indeed--and will probably---evolve into a higher life form. Just like we did. We have documented proof of the evolution of every single life form. As I said in my OP. Just because some of you fail to acknowledge that in no way dismisses the fact. Turning a blind eye does not refute. Or even discredit. Rather, it discredits the credibility of the person who denies proven scientific theories and observations. In the Intel circles this would be called "mission blow-back" to your people. That is: unintended and undesirable consequences. Ooops! LOL SS Side: True.
Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time? When is the last time a virus turned into something that is not a virus, and when is the last time a bacteria turned into something that is not a bacteria? I didn't know they evolved. Please tell me when they evolved? OHHHHH, I know .....they turn into beetles!!!!!!!! that's why we have so many beetles!!! the bacteria start eating steroids, they get attacked by viruses, and the only way they can survive is to incorporate the viral DNA bits into their bacterial DNA and BOOM!!! Beetles emerge badder than Pokemon Mothzilla!!! Where else could beetles have come from? Thanks, you helped and your hope of helping has reached fruition. My thinking has evolved. Now I realize that I am not real and am in reality only a product of chemical fizzes with no hope of getting out of death and no moral authority outside of myself so it's okay for me to do whatever in the name of Hell I want to do since there is no Hell and God can't stop me from being a pervert, dopehead, and foul mouth punk. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You are an idiot. Evolution is not the transition of bacteria into beetles or trees giving birth to kittens. Evolution is the gradual change over time. And animals don't change into animals that are NOT their ancestors, they become more complex versions OF their ancestors, unless their naturally selected mutation is deleterious, in which case they are still just different versions of their ancestors. It's an incredibly simplified explanation, but take humans, for instance: ancient organisms grew a backbone, we have a backbone now. Ancient vertebrates grew four limbs, we have four limbs now. Ancient tetrapods stood upright, we stand upright now. Ancient bipeds developed larger brains, we have larger brains now. Whilst we are different, we are still vertebrate, bipedal tetrapods with larger brains even today (tetrapod just means "has four limbs" not "walks on four limbs"). Evolution is not this magical process you seem to believe it to be, we slowly develop over time, and when we develop in a way that benefits our species. Just as these bacteria developed their abilities which benefited their species. The kinds of changes I just described take millions of years and MILLIONS of mutations, so of course this video will not show evolution to that extent, but it does show these bacteria evolving over time in a way that benefits them. Side: True.
Oh. Evolution is supposedly gradual change over time, bacteria turning into beetles gradually over time, trees morphing into kittens gradually over time. Now I understand. Kabillion Zillions of years makes it all true. Animals don't change into animals which are not their ancestors? They change into their ancestors? Does that mean you could be your grandma when you wake in the morning? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Either you are stupid, or you are putting in extra effort not to think just for us. No matter, you're pants-on-head missing the point if you honestly think you will become your grandmother. The point I made was that when animals evolve, they don't stop being their predecessors. When you claim that bacteria "becomes" a beetle, or a tree "becomes" a kitten, you're talking absolute nonsense. That's not what evolution is, and if you think that's what it is, you're an idiot. There's a reason we are all carbon-based lifeforms, it's because the first lifeform was carbon-based. No matter how many times we evolve, no matter how many descendants we have, we are carbon-based and always will be. Because evolution is not the transformation of your descendants into something new, it is the minor adaptation of something that already exists. Given time, these minor adaptations accumulate and we do evolve to such a degree that we look incredibly different from our ancestors, and if the selective factors are right, our related co-descendants can speciate to the degree that we can no longer interbreed, when those such changes occur, we create a new taxonomic clade. There's a reason evolutionary educators will say "humans are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs", it's because whilst we have evolved from our ancestors, we don't evolve "out" of our ancestors, we evolve "out" of our extant co-descendants, this is what speciation means. We never stopped being apes, Or, if that's too difficult for you to understand: allow me to explain it simpler. If my grandmother is German, I have german ancestry and always will, if I marry a Spanish woman, then my children would be german and spanish. And our descendants would always be part-german and part-spanish. Even if they moved to America and lived there for seventeen generations, all of their children would still be a little bit Spanish and a little bit German. Which is why, although we are multi-cellular, bipedal great apes, we are still carbon-based, because we descended from carbon-based lifeforms, just like all life on this planet. Side: True.
You are a fool, talking like a parrot spoon fed by Dawkins saying stupid things which make no sense when you spew your hatred of God. You love death, enjoy it, and see if you don't find yourself dying forever in Hell the same as you are dying on Earth. You can be saved by the Savior, but I doubt that you will. You will probably keep saying the stupidest thing a fool can say..."you have to prove Hell is real before I believe it"...until you find yourself unable to get out of Hell. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I don't hate "God". I can't, because I do not believe that a god exists. I have never read any of the writings of Dawkins, so I don't see how you could say that I am merely repeating his "spoon fed" ideas. And if you're going to threaten someone, it would make a lot more sense if you threatened me with something real, rather than an extradimensional punish-basement. But either way, the intent is still despicable. If you can't argue with facts, don't argue at all, threatening people is just ad baculum [essentially, Argument from the Whip], and it proves not only that you can't win this debate with facts, but that you know you don't have any facts. But more important than any of this, is that We're not here debating hell currently, Saintnow. The claim is "this video shows proof of evolution", and it does. Debate the non-existence of your god some other day, today we're talking about proof of evolution. Side: True.
I see that you are new here so...., this may help ;) http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Side: True.
I"m sorry, I don't think you are ready to hear the truth, I suggest you read my replies to people who like you are not ready to hear the truth but they have thicker skin to take it. I don't want you to feel harassed by me. I do appreciate that you have read my posts, and I hope you find them entertaining if not compelling. It's probably better for me to just let you read my replies to others, and better for me to not read your replies. I hope you understand, and I hope you have a great time debating people who play the game your way. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Evolution is not a magical process, but you expect me to believe single celled organisms morphed into multi cellular organisms over trazillions of years and some of them had the nerve to get a backbone and they turning into your Tarzan Monkey ancestor grandma? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
No, I don't expect you to believe anything. You don't have to believe evolution, just like you don't have to believe the world is an oblate spheroid. But if you care about the truth, and do not want to believe that which is untrue, then you should believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact; and yes, multi-cellular life did evolve from single-celled organisms. This is a fact, and yes, over time cells divided and evolved into multi-cellular life-forms, and these eukaryotic organisms became more complex, developed sensory organs and limbs and eventually nerves and a backbone. As for "Tarzan Monkey ancestor grandma", no. We evolved from apes, not monkeys. And it was several million years ago that our ancestors were arboreal and covered in thick hair like "Tarzan" Jungle apes, so no it's not grandma. But some of this is getting beside the point. The fact is that evolution is true, and the video around which this debate is being based is proof of that fact. It shows beneficial mutation over time. Side: True.
And your "mission blowback" only works in places where Dawkins the promoter of "mild molestation by pedophiles" can have his bigotry sanctioned. There are many highly accomplished, successful, highly respected, and still working scientists who your punky "mission blowback" cannot touch unless we return to persecution of Christians in tune with Rome in the first and second centuries AD..........those men are in complete agreement with me in matters of faith and their credentials compared to yours make any of your personal credentials a big joke when you act like you are Mr. Man of the World. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
"When you believe in evolution and/or atheism, you discredit yourself. Whining about your beliefs being called stupid does not help your credibility." Source? Again, empty claim, no evidence. I've provided and explained how evolution works, and we have evidence through embryology, the fossil record, anatomical structures, and so on. Side: True.
My beliefs are not hidden or difficult to understand, they are in the open and the only thing that is not exposed to you is the truth because you are hiding behind a brick wall you have set up in your mind. It's you personally who fears being exposed. If you learn God can be trusted, the only thing you will fear would be to displease Him. Side: True.
Do viruses evolve to pets, or does it further propel man into their never ending decay? God said to the Serpent... Cursed are you above all beasts, you will go on your belly, and eat dust all your days, and I will place enmity between your seed and her seed, and He shall strike your head, and you His heel. There are two images of seed, DNA. Demons has spread their seed like viruses, currupting the DNA of both beast and man. The fallen angels brought crafts and skills of Heavens and taught their ways to men. But God washed the earth of their seed in a flood, all but one, sons and wives, because Satan's seeds had currupted all the people, and the seed of Satan and of demons had multiplied exceedingly. God washed them away from the face of the earth, destroyed them completely by flood, their DNA had been ruined, grievous to God. Their minds and herarts in continuous evil. Violence had taken them deravity in their seed spread like mutating viruses, DNA of an image of beasts, not of men, not in image of God. Men who bow down to his currupt DNA, are seeds of their father, of demons, of Satan, the image of beasts. In Luke 17 Jesus said, "So it will be as in the days of Noah..." When demons took women, the daughters of men, his seed spread on the earth. After the flood also, they did it again. And every army God said to kill down to the infant, was seed currupted that had to be stopped. Or we would be worse, and sicker, and screwed up all of us in our DNA. In the image of beasts, not of man in the image of God. When the time came, Jesus cleansed us, hanging our bodies of currupted DNA on a tree, and bringing Salvation and a chance you be Born Again. Those who are born again, He cleanses, and they are children of God, born in the seed of promise. The seed of the Heavenly only begotten seed of the Father. By His seed we are new creations, while those who choose darkness are the seed that grew in darkness, monkey-boy, ape-man, a cockroach, a worm. The image of a beasts, not made in the image of God. Beloved children seed of Promis and of God. Our Father in whose hands we were fashioned an in His image made . So choose your DNA markers of viruses and apes. Seed is just seed, after it's kind does seeds make! The seed of His promise He fashions like Clay, refining like pure hold in His likeness and image of the 1st Born of God.
Or seeds of the creature, the dragon, a snake. Seed like Satan does demon spawn make! Like father like son, on your belly crawl, led by your lusts eating dust and flesh all your days, virus and all! . . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
"Given enough time...long after you and I are gone, they could indeed--and will probably---evolve into a higher life form. Just like we did." This is not a statement of science, it is a hypothesis stating your beliefs. You have concluded your beliefs are factual, so your approach of studying nature begs the question and bends data to fit your beliefs. It's useless good for nothing waste of time preaching your belief of hope of escaping justice in death. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Why do we have these so-called "Super Bugs"? Are you referring to bacteria which were always bacteria and developed resistant to toxins, or are you referring to bacteria which over a few million years morphed into Bugs Bunny and now are "Super Bugs"? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
Indeed, the bacteria did not evolve into worms or birds, but given enough time it might evolve into something else. Bateria didn't suddenly go "poof!" into multicellular organisms. Slow changes into multicellular organisms, and so on and so on resulted in the divergence of many species such as worms or birds. So no, bacteria adapting to changes does not prove phylogenic relationships, but it does prove that allele frequencies change over time, whether due to natural selection or other factors of evolution, supporting the theory of evolution. Side: True.
1
point
I'm no expert on the time it takes for a population to evolve, but I do know it's not some made up number like "kazillion" years. It's still debated whether or not populations evolve quickly at once when evolutionary pressure rises suddenly or whether it's a much more gradual thing that happens constantly. Either way, it will take quite a long time, but it's been long enough for complex, multicellular organisms to evolve. Once you have sexual reproduction, things speed up quite quickly. Side: True.
populations adapt, they do not evolve. You are no expert on the time it takes for a population to evolve because it does not happen. Colonies of lizard separating themselves in distant populations are still lizards, still the same kind of lizard they were before the populations separated, they never evolved, they are not evolving, they will not evolve, they will always be the same kind of lizard they always were. This is observable science, observable science NEVER shows animals evolving. If you believe they do, that's your believe and it's not science. What is observed is that it never happens. It has never been observed and that points to it never happening much more than it points to it happening. Kabillions of years of time is not a magic wand. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
So again, they adapt. So they evolve. Please tell me your definition of evolution, because it's the change in allele frequencies over time. As for your lizard example, those two populations of lizards are experiencing allopatric speciation. Given enough time, genetic differences accumulate until a reproductive barrier forms, generating two different species of lizards as according to the biological species concept. Given enough time and enough speciation, let's say the lizards on one side lose their tails, while the other grow an extra toe on each foot. More and more differences accumulate until you no longer have lizards. The common ancestor was a lizard, but now neither species is a lizard. Side: True.
The resulting loss of DNA or loss of DNA function in mutations is contrary to the hypothesis of evolution, and ignoring facts contrary to evolution's hypothesis does not cause evilution to be a theory which can be observed, tested, and repeated. You believe in evolution, you cannot observe it, cannot test it, and cannot show it happening. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
What do you mean by "loss of DNA or DNA function"? If you're referring to the fact that mutations can cause fatalities- mutations aren't always detrimental, the can also be beneficial. Furthermore, how is that contrary to evolution? Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, which happens all the time. You can very much so see it, test it, and show it. Take peppered moths for example- darker moths were naturally selected for during the gilded age, and after the revolution light moths were selected for. Furthermore, natural selection is only one way for populations to evolve. Artificial selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene drift, and gene flow are all processes that can cause a population to evolve. Side: True.
Change of allele frequencies can be observed. Adaptation to changes in the environment can be observed. Evolution cannot be observed. Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism, DNA is lost or damaged in mutations. Mutations and adaptations are two different things, adaptations occur when latent genes are triggered or acting genes are shut down. Mutations are always detrimental to the organism. Populations separating is not evolution. "Speciation" is not evolution. We can observe those things. We cannot observe evolution. You believe evolution happens, I do not. I have no problem with observable science. When you say what you observe proves evolution, I say you are brainwashed. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Again, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, I'm not sure what you think it is. As for not adding through mutations, that's a myth. An insertion is a form of a frameshift mutation, and can happen just like a deletion can. Mutation and adaption are two different things- but mutations can result in adaptation. Again, you admit that adaptation to the changes in an environment can be observed, that's quite literally observing evolution. Speciation is not evolution, but the result of it. I should also add that evolution as a theory can't be proved, only supported. It has very much so been observed and supported. Again, evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. Please tell me what you think it is. Side: True.
speciation is the result of adaptation. It can be observed and studies scientifically. Evolution has to be believed. There is no need to believe in evolution to observe so-called speciation, and if you want to call a bacteria which developes resistance to an antibiotic a new species of bacteria, fine......but it's still bacteria, it has not evolved, it's still the same animal. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
If evolution has been observed, why can't you show it to me? It can't be proved because it did not happen, does not happen, never will happen. You supporting it does not make it real any more than a mother supporting the tooth fairy makes the tooth fairy real. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
This video literally shows it to you. The adaptation of bacteria, which is evolution. If you're talking about macroevolution, I can't show it to you directly because it takes a really long time- but I can show you the fossil record with transitional fossils that provide evidence for macro-evolution. Side: True.
hahahaha....bacteria at the start and bacteria at the end and you call it evolution. Sure. That proves the some kind of monkey/ape/primate/werewolf/bigfoot/ Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
This video provides all of your evidence for "macro-evolution". This video is full of scientific evidence which proves bacteria gradually over a few duhdillion years turned into people. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
You have not. I definitely have. Copying in (again) from my post from 2 years ago: "There are lots of ways information is added to the genome: - duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence) - asymmetrical chiasma - Trinucleotide repeats - polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage) - nucleotide and amino acid insertion - frameshift mutations - virus insertional mutagenesis - polyploidy" And from answersingenesis - a creation site: "Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type.53 This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvationinducible cstA gene.54" "Hence, certain environmental conditions seem to favor bacteria with specific genes duplicated. This may have provided the organism a temporary increase in gene expression of those duplicated genes, which apparently helped the organism cope with the higher temperature." Notice that both of the (beneficial) mutations they are describing resulted in increased genome size. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Just take one of the above and show that either they don't happen, or that they don't increase the size. Should be easy for you, right? Here ya go: - duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence) - asymmetrical chiasma - Trinucleotide repeats - polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage) - nucleotide and amino acid insertion - frameshift mutations - virus insertional mutagenesis - polyploidy Side: True.
1
point
variations which are potential in the genome are not new DNA There are three types of mutation: substitution mutations - replacing nucleotides with other nucleotides - size remains the same deletion mutations - removal of nucleotides - size decreases and INSERTION mutations - addition of nucleotides - size increases Side: True.
You are picking bits and pieces out of the creation site you are quoting and adding broader meaning to suit yourself to fit those bits and pieces you picked out. If you read the entire article at that site, it explains why you are wrong in what you believe about DNA. The site you are quoting is against what you are saying, and explains very well in scientific terms why your ideas are twisted and ignorant. We did this before. I went to the site and showed how it is not saying what you imply it is saying, but is saying you are wrong. And you are wrong, evolution does not happen. Observable science is not in dispute, your belief in evolution is in dispute and it's dumb. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
No, the people of that site agree that there are mutations, there are beneficial mutations, and there are mutations that increase the size of the genome. They still probabilistic claims on the number of beneficial mutations, and discuss how temporary they might be, etc. etc. (unconvincingly I might add), but they definitely disagree with your claim that DNA never grows - since they have observed the opposite. Side: True.
You are taking bits and pieces out of context and twisting the meanings of what is being said. You are not being honest in your wordings and not looking at things honestly. You are looking from a preconceived opinion which begs the question and demands the answer fit your assumption. If you read the entire article, the site you reference is completely against your implication that mutations cause evolution so that reptiles morph into birds gradually over millions of years or any other such nonsense. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
the site you reference is completely against your implication that mutations cause evolution so that reptiles morph into birds Did I say - here is a site that completely agrees with every claim that I make - or, did I say here is a site (run by creationists) that disagrees with a claim that you make? Side: True.
1
point
A few quotes from your waterfall: ------------------------------ New DNA is never seen to be added to the genome of any creature which would be required for evolution to occur. ref Mutations NEVER add DNA ref Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism, DNA is lost or damaged in mutations. ref Mutations are always detrimental to the organism. ref Variations and mutations are obvious and cannot be argued against. It is not evolution, it is not new DNA being added to the genome. ref The only thing I deny is that DNA is added to the genome by mutation. A mutation or a variation is not new DNA added to the genome of the creature. The genome allows for variations, and mutations are always from defects in the DNA. Neither of these things adds new DNA to the genome causing one animal to turn into a different kind of animal as would be required for evolution to occur. It never has been observed and never will be observed because it never happened and never will happen. ref changing genes is a variation or a mutation, it's not evolution. It does not add DNA to the genome of the animal. ref The question was "Can you show me one example mutation or any process of evolution adding DNA to the genome of any creature". You cannot. ref Mutation does not add new information to the genome of any creature. ref you argue that mutation adds DNA to the genome when it has never been seen to happen ref ------------------------------ 1) As I have shown, even some ardent creationists agree that we have observed processes which add DNA. 2) An increase (or decrease or change) in the DNA is BY DEFINITION a mutation. Therefore, there are mutations which add DNA Side: True.
Do viruses evolve to pets, or does it further propel man into their never ending decay? God said to the Serpent... Cursed are you above all beasts, you will go on your belly, and eat dust all your days, and I will place enmity between your seed and her seed, and He shall strike your head, and you His heel. There are two images of seed, DNA. Demons has spread their seed like viruses, currupting the DNA of both beast and man. The fallen angels brought crafts and skills of Heavens and taught their ways to men. But God washed the earth of their seed in a flood, all but one, sons and wives, because Satan's seeds had currupted all the people, and the seed of Satan and of demons had multiplied exceedingly. God washed them away from the face of the earth, destroyed them completely by flood, their DNA had been ruined, grievous to God. Their minds and herarts in continuous evil. Violence had taken them deravity in their seed spread like mutating viruses, DNA of an image of beasts, not of men, not in image of God. Men who bow down to his currupt DNA, are seeds of their father, of demons, of Satan, the image of beasts. In Luke 17 Jesus said, "So it will be as in the days of Noah..." When demons took women, the daughters of men, his seed spread on the earth. After the flood also, they did it again. And every army God said to kill down to the infant, was seed currupted that had to be stopped. Or we would be worse, and sicker, and screwed up all of us in our DNA. In the image of beasts, not of man in the image of God. When the time came, Jesus cleansed us, hanging our bodies of currupted DNA on a tree, and bringing Salvation and a chance you be Born Again. Those who are born again, He cleanses, and they are children of God, born in the seed of promise. The seed of the Heavenly only begotten seed of the Father. By His seed we are new creations, while those who choose darkness are the seed that grew in darkness, monkey-boy, ape-man, a cockroach, a worm. The image of a beasts, not made in the image of God. Beloved children seed of Promis and of God. Our Father in whose hands we were fashioned an in His image made . So choose your DNA markers of viruses and apes. Seed is just seed, after it's kind does seeds make! The seed of His promise He fashions like Clay, refining like pure hold in His likeness and image of the 1st Born of God.
Or seeds of the creature, the dragon, a snake. Seed like Satan does demon spawn make! Like father like son, on your belly crawl, led by your lusts eating dust and flesh all your days, virus and all! . . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Do viruses evolve to pets, or does it further propel man into their never ending decay? Yes, from the simple came the more complex. And yes, we can observe beneficial mutations. The fallen angels brought crafts and skills of Heavens and taught their ways to men. fan fiction. God washed the earth of their seed in a flood fiction after it's kind does seeds make Define kind. Did dogs evolve from wolves? Side: True.
1
point
Like kind of the same nature and quality. Demon spawn, like the the nature of demons, spawn, of the seed of demons, like in nature of instinct and behavior. Similar pattern connecting heritage, mutation of DNA, demon seed cross breeding. Of two kinds, of two natures. The mind of depravity, after kind after nature, having the genes of a beasts. When one nature, becomes a less dominant gene, and the other gene becomes dominant. So as you conform to the image and nature of the beast, you bear a genetic code or nature of demons, and when chosen it is your mark. Wheras seed of man made in God's image bear His Seal, and the Seed of promise creates a new creation, born again, in the nature of God, cleansed from the demon spawn seed genetically altering your minds ability to reason as a man. Nature of God, or nature of beadt! And that's were those after their kind, a demon nature's will have his final evolving. So I agree we are evolving, some after his kind, and seed of demons after his kind. And others after His kind, like God's nature, children in His image, after His kind! It's funny you want to discuss dogs. Dogs are dogs, a wolf is a kind of dog. It is the beast version of the docile pet. Without manipulation one kind can mate with another, and it's basically similar to man. Two nature's, one wild and living by instinct driven by the lust of his beastly nature. And one that has tamed his instinct to be of a different nature. So when the Bible says outside are the dogs, it's talking about the dog whose nature is its master, the beast's image, and beast mind, and beast instinct, the lower intelligence of man, lead by appetite and depravity. Phillipians: 3 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, Phillipians: 3 17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. Revelations 22 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. 16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
First 6 paragraphs - gibberish. a wolf is a kind of dog If you believe wolves and dogs are related, then you believe mutations can change - body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. If dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same kind as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same kind as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same kind as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the same kind as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same kind as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same kind as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
I think Satan and demons are fathers of mutations, and God brought order into creation on day 5 and 6. I think Satan and demons currupted and manipulated God's creation and made giants and abnormal beast like the t-rex. But although the particles of cell growth were in the dust, God made nature and man in order above the dust. When God said let there be light this place was dark void and without form, and He brought form light and filled the earth. Cross breeding was the reason God sent the flood, because flesh was currupted over the whole earth. And man had been so currupted the were narcissistic violent and sexually perverse in every way. Including demons mutating beast with the seed of demons. I think the big picture from Genesis to Revelations is how he currupted genes and dna and that is why there are two images and the potential for becoming the image of the beast compared to the image of God. The mark of the beast. Evolution and the evolve mentioned of unreasonining animals is the end of man, and that's what we see today. The image is being chosen. And we are close to the end of flesh. Before God washed the earth in the flood, God said he saw the end of all flesh. So the first flood man was so currupt and violent it was the final presentation of man who were like beasts. Sodom and Gomorrah was another example of the end of the seed of curruption. And we are there again today. As Jesus said people will hate and violence, and abomination of desolation. And a beast is worshiped his image taken. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
again - what I asked: If dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
Atheist are illogical, because they shut their minds down, and choose not to answer the details out side their box. It's illogical to dismiss other questions by one theory.
Their whole argument of why there isn't a God is Gods existence isnt based on one subject. Evolution is a moving piece, but what other moving pieces are there? Evolution doesn't disprove God. And there is stacks of proof He does exist. At that point there are two conclusion I can see, either you are not intelligent enough to even be aware of anything outside your little box, or you want to be unaware. But then let’s be honest, and give credit where credit is due. Instead of telling people with bigger minds than the atheist, people of Christianity they are illogical, simply just admit you are content in your little box, and atheisrs really have nothing to add especially with any matter of fact authority to discussions about God’s existence, because none climb outside of their boxes.
So they either can't understand, or you won't understand, but there are not enough diagnostics to conclude anything with just evolution! So, it has nothing to do with the intelligence and ability of others who actually aren't stuck in your little place of thinking. Those thinkers are actually the logical among us, not the unthinking atheist! But they give no reasoning to the others who are using more than two matches without something to strike for a flame! It's like saying "we understand gravity, so we won't make a plane that can fly above gravity, or a rocket to break through gravity" Atheist aren't illogical based on their theory of evolution, their illogical because they are narrow minded and hyper-focused on one direction, without answering logically anything else in the many other directions. Atheism is as illogical as a child believing in Santa, they find their toys arrive under the tree, and the find evidence that mom wrapped them, so in their little minds this one thing is all there is to know about Christmas. But there is a lot more important to know about Christmas than this little part, Santa. Like the economic impact locally and nationally, or the good and bad of impacts of holidays from Christmas to Mothers Day, there is so many different aspects to understand about Christmas than whether Santa where's a red suit and has a reindeer named Rudolph! There is incredible depth to know about, like foods, and families, and cultures, knowledge that can spider out to be all kinds of directions. But atheists are more like a 7 year old boy who just figured out that mom and dad are Santa. The imature mind of the child thinks everything is figured out because they have enough evidence to think mom and dad are Santa, so then there is nothing else to know. Yet Santa is the smallest thing to know, but to the smarty pants 7 year old, it's the only thing to know. Atheism is just like this logic. Now it's fine for the little child to care only about one aspect. But when sitting at the adult table discussing the financial economics, or the psychology or family or good will social impact, the child taking the whole table and making his theory about Santa the biggest conversation, is just simply juvenile! So if you didn't notice, I don't think evolution is a logical our exclusive source for if God does or doesn't exist. There is so much more outside of your little box of Chunky Legos, and that is why you are illogical. Because a reasoning mind can reason with a broad look of information and perceive a bigger logical picture, and the illogical can't find their way out of a cardboard box! . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
again - what I asked: If dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
Again, here is an exact example. I have said evolution is neither a weight for or against His existence. And the only thing you are mature enough to discuss is if mom wrapped the presents. Your a child at the adult table. Come back next year, when you grow up a little! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
And I assert that if you answer the question, you will see how evolution does contradict the bible and you apparently know this which is why you can't answer the question. again - what I asked: If dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
How do three Stone structures appear across oceans from each other that clearly are set in ancient days, unable to be moved by humans, and mathematically more advance than the greatest math minds, you can connect them with string going across oceans. So answer it by evolution! Atheist are illogical, because they shut their minds down, and choose not to answer the details out side their box. It's illogical to dismiss other questions by one theory.
Their whole argument of why there isn't a God is Gods existence isnt based on one subject. Evolution is a moving piece, but what other moving pieces are there? Evolution doesn't disprove God. And there is stacks of proof He does exist. At that point there are two conclusion I can see, either you are not intelligent enough to even be aware of anything outside your little box, or you want to be unaware. But then let’s be honest, and give credit where credit is due. Instead of telling people with bigger minds than the atheist, people of Christianity they are illogical, simply just admit you are content in your little box, and atheisrs really have nothing to add especially with any matter of fact authority to discussions about God’s existence, because none climb outside of their boxes.
So they either can't understand, or you won't understand, but there are not enough diagnostics to conclude anything with just evolution! So, it has nothing to do with the intelligence and ability of others who actually aren't stuck in your little place of thinking. Those thinkers are actually the logical among us, not the unthinking atheist! But they give no reasoning to the others who are using more than two matches without something to strike for a flame! It's like saying "we understand gravity, so we won't make a plane that can fly above gravity, or a rocket to break through gravity" Atheist aren't illogical based on their theory of evolution, their illogical because they are narrow minded and hyper-focused on one direction, without answering logically anything else in the many other directions. Atheism is as illogical as a child believing in Santa, they find their toys arrive under the tree, and the find evidence that mom wrapped them, so in their little minds this one thing is all there is to know about Christmas. But there is a lot more important to know about Christmas than this little part, Santa. Like the economic impact locally and nationally, or the good and bad of impacts of holidays from Christmas to Mothers Day, there is so many different aspects to understand about Christmas than whether Santa where's a red suit and has a reindeer named Rudolph! There is incredible depth to know about, like foods, and families, and cultures, knowledge that can spider out to be all kinds of directions. But atheists are more like a 7 year old boy who just figured out that mom and dad are Santa. The imature mind of the child thinks everything is figured out because they have enough evidence to think mom and dad are Santa, so then there is nothing else to know. Yet Santa is the smallest thing to know, but to the smarty pants 7 year old, it's the only thing to know. Atheism is just like this logic. Now it's fine for the little child to care only about one aspect. But when sitting at the adult table discussing the financial economics, or the psychology or family or good will social impact, the child taking the whole table and making his theory about Santa the biggest conversation, is just simply juvenile! So if you didn't notice, I don't think evolution is a logical our exclusive source for if God does or doesn't exist. There is so much more outside of your little box of Chunky Legos, and that is why you are illogical. Because a reasoning mind can reason with a broad look of information and perceive a bigger logical picture, and the illogical can't find their way out of a cardboard box! . Evolution is neither a weight For or Against God's existence. And the only thing many atheists are logical enough or mature enough to discuss, is if mom wrapped the presents! They are children at the adult table. Maybe they can sit at the adult table next year, if and when they grow up a little! And have an ability to apply logic broadly, instead of itty bitty and teany weany bits characteristic of an unreasoning and illogical mind! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Answer the questions and then I will elucidate. again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
I answered it, you don't like the answer. You small mind wants to argue the color suit Santa wears because the childs thoughts are bigger. But no they really are not big at all! How do three Stone structures appear across oceans from each other that clearly are set in ancient days, unable to be moved by humans, and mathematically more advance than the greatest math minds, you can connect them with string going across oceans. So answer it by evolution! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I answered it, you don't like the answer. You specifically did not. isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
How do three Stone structures appear across oceans from each other that clearly are set in ancient days, unable to be moved by humans, and mathematically more advance than the greatest math minds, you can connect them with string going across oceans. So answer it by evolution! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
three Stone structures Presumably you mean this or some other silliness. Nice dodge - again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
This is the point. Not how many cells match or divide, that obviously your itty bitty selected area to study. But what about everything else? That's my entire point! So my entire point is huge boulders and you want to just talk about three pebbles you've been carrying in your pocket. Where are you going with three pebbles. I feel sorry for you, I'd hate to be confined to thinking as big as a pocket! How do three Stone structures appear across oceans from each other that clearly are set in ancient days, unable to be moved by humans, and mathematically more advance than the greatest math minds, you can connect them with string going across oceans. So answer it by evolution! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
But what about everything else? We can get to everything else right after you answer the initial questions. again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
Why? What do these pebbles have to do with the stack of other questions evolution can not answer. I actually don't dispute principles of evolution. It's a non issue to me. So why does it matter what I think of whether a dog is a wolf, or I'd Rudolph is a reign deer with a red nose? What part of it doesn't answer most things don't you get? I don't actually care if you can build Jerasic Park by viruses. It's actually irrelevant. My point is the world around us, and Biblical things when asked how can 10 prophesies be fullfilled literally in order, dependant one one another in order, how can we logically dismiss that as coincidence? There isn't any math probability that makes that logical or reasonable! So my point monkey man, is you are a small thinker because there is more logic showing God or something bigger exists! Bigger than bing bang, or particle matter combustion, or monkeys to man, or bacteria to a fish! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Why? Um, why not?? I actually don't dispute principles of evolution. good - then answering should be no problem for you. again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
I don't think your questions are worth me looking up, I'm not a biologist. And since I neither confirm or deny evolution, I don't think I need to study it's many principles. My understanding of evolution is mutations of cells like cancer and viruses. There was a cataclysmic event, and that probably started something, the earth is likely billions of years old. What else do I need to measure evolution with, if I'm not discounting evolution? Do I need to study three pebbles and dismiss all the other questions or evidence? Or do I need to take what little I know in the basic strokes and figure out where it fits into everything else? So I took what's been said, and I looked to see how it fit in this big wall puzzle of facts, unanswered, or prophesy which is clearly super and unnatural, and unlike predictions of any kind. With many fulfilled down to wh and a timestamp. So I said all these other unusual things can't be logically dismissed without actually being unreasoble and illogical. So I questioned how does it work, or where does it fit? Not hyper focusing against resoning and logic to say how it doesn't! So then, I realized that the Bible has some indications of legitimacy to principles of evolution. And if I were writing, not being a scientist with a lab, and prior to a field we call science, I'd probably say it that way too. And Aristotle also did in his terms of his era. So why would I expect something different. And since the Bible is written for all, in every generation, from the scholar to the carpenter, to the wisdom of a man who is 90 to the small learning mind of a child. I would expect God to keep it somewhat simple, especially if Jesus said, we need to be simple like children. So while atheists are arguing about terms, which I really don't consider here nor there. I've looked at information from the universe, and the world, and even down to just basic reading, and I've taken in millenniums of information so as to conclude if God exists or not. Whereas atheists take one big red ribbon, tie it onto a stick, and waved it all around to make it look much more impressive than it actually is! It's nothing more than the hokey pokey! I'd rather interpret everything and know the big picture, then know nothing because of focusing only on one thing! Did you ever hear, focus on the rock, and you will hit the rock. So it's no surprise that limiting your knowledge of God to just one small thing, that you hit the small thing and crash. Because your focus is only on the rock, you can't see the wide open road! . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I don't think your questions are worth me looking up So, other people are supposed to "investigate instead of shutting down", but not you? Are you the one "stepping back and taking in all the info" - if someone asks you to take a look at info and you say it isn't worth it? I don't limit things in one direction You just decide that the other directions aren't worthwhile. I raise my view to take more in until challenged. I'm not a biologist You seemed sure enough to pronounce that a wolf is a kind of dog without being a biologist. If wolves and dogs are related by mutation, then mutation can change: body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. Don't the pairs I mention fall within the same level of mutation or less? Side: True.
If I'm not disputing it, why do I need to study it? What does it have to do with evolution not being exclusive to nothing. And also correcting education by at least adding the truth about the Bible's credibility as written history, and give credibility to findings and to stop controlling information from affirming biblical History. Because it's producing people like you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Since you obviously don't plan to answer - the bible says sea animals and birds were created on day 5 and that land animals were created on day 6. Evolution says: 1) land animals preceded birds 2) land animals evolved from sea animals (and marine mammals are sea animals that later evolved from land animals). The biblical account and the evolution account cannot both be true - there is evidence for the evolution account (for example, the chain of pairs I previously provided.) Side: True.
That is what they think because they havn't found birds. But like everything else, then it's found. You put your faith in evolution, but it's still faith. Because journey don't know. And neither do they. It is not as conclusive as you think. And they change it often, and argue theories and then add new findings. It's a mutation of theories. Ever changing, and mutating. So your faith is in the shape-shifter and he is your father, monkey man. But us we have a Father too, and what you fail to realize is the image your taken was spoken of old. Choose wisely or the mark will be taken, and your father will be a creature a cruel creature who eats flesh all of his days. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
That is what they think because they havn't found birds. Not only because they haven't found birds earlier in the fossil record, but also because they have found evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds. It is not as conclusive as you think. It is not as inconclusive as you think... Side: True.
1
point
1
point
I assumed the ability to click a link and read - perhaps I overestimated. "Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth. Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young. Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction. Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only. But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity. "By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other." Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth. In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the uterus wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of "extreme" animals in the womb.) In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source. Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development. The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells. This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles. Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus. "Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles," Stewart explained. Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother. For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies. In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said. "We tend to think of this as a very complex transition," he said, "but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought." The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology." Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Because spelling you're matters in the grand all in all of life. Again, an example of the unreasoning mind. Apples equal potatoes. I'll respond over the weekend to busy today. I'll leave you with food for thought. But I have alot of responses to address, and I'm out today, so I'll catch up with you over the weekend. ........ The Bible is communication.. God chose one people to manage the dictation and preservation of His Word, or communication. God combines this also with interaction of His Spirit, to bring revelation of understanding for clarity and confirmation. The Bible is like a book of judicial procedure. There is clear procedure of judicial witness. So all facts are to be facts, and not to be guesses. Faith is built on solid principles of witness, evidence, and testimony, all working together to make firm facts. Truth is judicial. God is judicial. Because of it’s spiritual nature, God delivered written testimony, evidence of testimony, and testimonies confirmed by a cloud of eyewitnesses. With added revelation of understanding which bears witness of truth and facts in our spirits, which is the witness by understanding given by God as testimony confirming all. It's like we are jury, determining truth by the body of evidence from written to understanding and all the evidence too. That's why Jesus asked disciples “who do you say I am,” He also asked “who do others say I am,” then when answered correctly He says, The Father revealed this to you, Jesus also discusses, how select people could understand, while the multitude could not. It's eyes of Understanding, given by the Spirit, and it is confirmed in writing. So we are not decieved by angels of light giving false testimony, that is not confirmed in writing, the Bible is the written contract, confirming the Spirit of the fulfilment of contract. So if we go to court about contract breach, we refer to what is written, and the intention of what was written, in light of the purpose of the entire contract written contract. And we can also determine false testimony, so as not to be decieved. And to be clear in our judgement of facts pertaining to spiritual matters, eternity, and freedom vs. final sentencing of condemnation. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Jeremiah 23 12 “Therefore their way will be like slippery paths to them, They will be driven away into the gloom and fall down in it; For I will bring calamity upon them, The year of their punishment,” declares the Lord. 13 “Moreover, among the prophets of Samaria I saw an offensive thing: They prophesied by Baal and led My people Israel astray. 14 “Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one has turned back from his wickedness. All of them have become to Me like Sodom, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah. 15 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets, ‘Behold, I am going to feed them wormwood And make them drink poisonous water, For from the prophets of Jerusalem Pollution has gone forth into all the land.’” 16 Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the Lord. 17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’ 18 “But who has stood in the council of the Lord, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened? 19 “Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. 20 “The anger of the Lord will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; . In the last days you will clearly understand it. Side: True.
Nice! But no cigar! Stars are referred to as angels throughout scripture, and is detailed incredibly in books of Enoch. We are just touching the surface of the information and revelation that God is pouring out in these days. You have to understand the revelation and understanding aspect of the Bible. When Jesus instructed to seek, and to look for the Kingdom like hidden treasures, He was telling us how to find what we need for every time. The fallen angels looked up and made gods of constellations. These are angels and appointments. When God placed "time" on Day 4. He did more than earth rotation and a calendar. He placed our times, our seasons, the number of our days, and the work of that time scheduled and appointed. So, all of your sources are linear. They have no understanding on the movements of the Spirit of God. And God purposely blinded them, and the Devils they unwittingly serve. These are His times and purposes, the King and Queen on the chess board do not consult with pawns! So then if God has blinded them, why seek their wisdom where there is none? You also need to to realize and understand Christians who hear from God follow the light AS IT IS BEING REVEALED. So the question is, if He is an unreachable depth, and His Word is hidden treasure, then is it logical to assume everything is already known? Or is it more logical to look what is known, and expect God to show us more at His appointed time. He uses the words Appointed time in various terms, He even says not only are events and Prophesy fulfilled at appointed times, He also discusses revelation of these treasures at the appointed time. Satan is powerful and reads too, shocking, I know. So if our enemy can pick up the playbook and read it, would it be a wise strategy to not have things hidden, with the Spirit leading His children to find the treasures at their appointed times? . Christianity is a walk, it's a following the light and the cloud whenever He moves, which is a picture He gave leading Israel through the desert wilderness when they left Egypt. Which fyi, ALL of a sudden all these things are being uncovered in these last days. He let deceptions blind the academic skeptic, and all the evil hearts with them, so when His judgement is given, they deserve it by every sealed measure. A slam dunk testimony against them, and a partaking of the blood of those decieved on the earth will be required justice on their heads! Scarey, and true. The fool in his folly will be dealt the blow of judged demons. Their hearts were against God and his children, those will find no mercy in that day! Sheol won't ever release them from their torment. God is just, they deserve their punishment for the physical and spiritual deaths they caused, they were instruments of destruction, and doom is their payment IN FULL! Job 38 is crazy chock full of revelation, God shaking the wicked out! Earthquake will drop them into the Pit, and the righteous will be separated out as the wicked decending into the wide open mouth of Sheol. They are being marked as we stand. You are either sealed with His Spirit or your mind is that of oneness of image with the beast of the abyss. fyi no one deserves God's favor, but a willing to understand heart is the one God calls humble, and He exalts the humble. He raises up the humble. So I'm glad you mentioned Isaiah 14! Because it is telling you exactly the fate of the wicked, and the star that was once a bright light, that no longer shines in the Heavens, but has been cast down to Sheol. And let out to decieve the Nations, and the people, as God fills them all with the destruction of their flesh and pride, and lust! Job 38 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2 “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6 “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 “Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; 9 When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band, 10 And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors, 11 And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop’? 12 “Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, And caused the dawn to know its place, 13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it? 14 “It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment. 15 “From the wicked their light is withheld, And the uplifted arm is broken. 16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 “Have the gates of death been revealed to you, Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18 “Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this. 19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, 20 That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its home? 21 “You know, for you were born then, And the number of your days is great! 22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved for the time of distress, For the day of war and battle? 24 “Where is the way that the light is divided, Or the east wind scattered on the earth? 25 “Who has cleft a channel for the flood, Or a way for the thunderbolt, 26 To bring rain on a land without people, On a desert without a man in it, 27 To satisfy the waste and desolate land And to make the seeds of grass to sprout? 28 “Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew? 29 “From whose womb has come the ice? And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth? 30 “Water becomes hard like stone, And the surface of the deep is imprisoned. 31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion? 32 “Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? 33 “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth? 34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, So that an abundance of water will cover you? 35 “Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, ‘Here we are’? 36 “Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind? 37 “Who can count the clouds by wisdom, Or tip the water jars of the heavens, 38 When the dust hardens into a mass And the clods stick together? 39 “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, 40 When they crouch in their dens And lie in wait in their lair? 41 “Who prepares for the raven its nourishment When its young cry to God And wander about without food? Side: True.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
They don't sound as sure of these things as you seem to beleive! The large appendages of Longisquama were once interpreted as a double row of either scales or feathers that extended out to the side to form a series of ‘wings’. The idea was that Longisquama used these appendages to glide amongst the trees, and in turn may represent an actual ‘Proaves’ that was ancestral to birds. However since last two decades of the twentieth century the idea that birds originated from some point within the theropod dinosaurs has become accepted fact within the wider scientific community. This means that if the appendages of Longisquama are indeed feathers, then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution, though even today some researchers still hold up Longisquama as a member of a group of reptiles that are the true ancestors of birds. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The large appendages of Longisquama were once interpreted as a double row of either scales or feathers that extended out to the side to form a series of ‘wings’. The idea was that Longisquama used these appendages to glide amongst the trees, and in turn may represent an actual ‘Proaves’ that was ancestral to birds. However since last two decades of the twentieth century the idea that birds originated from some point within the theropod dinosaurs has become accepted fact within the wider scientific community. This means that if the appendages of Longisquama are indeed feathers, then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution, though even today some researchers still hold up Longisquama as a member of a group of reptiles that are the true ancestors of birds. Reptiles lay eggs. Seems to still line up with Genesis, thank you! Eggs on day 5 Milk on day 6 He doesn't distinguish reptiles 2nd, although a theory could be reptiles were forms Satan and his crew took on, since he clearly appeared as a serpent. So maybe those creatures came out of day 5 as mutations, But in any case I would say the division of the two days, and the appearance of Satan as a snake, show that God through His writer told of creatures that give birth by egg were day 5 And creatures who incubate their eggs in their bodies and deliver full developed young and then nurture by milk are a creature found on day 6. So now what issue do you take? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution Is "separate evolution" evidence against evolution? Eggs on day 5, Milk on day 6 Where does Genesis mention milk and eggs again? Reptiles lay eggs. Seems to still line up with Genesis Land reptiles preceding birds does not line up with Genesis at all. creatures that give birth by egg were day 5 Are whales sea creatures? were they created on day 5? do they lay eggs? creatures who incubate their eggs in their bodies and deliver full developed young and then nurture by milk are a creature found on day 6. Do you think no land animals lay eggs? how about lizards, spiders, etc.? did dinosaurs lay eggs? do even some mammals like the platypus lay eggs? Are chickens, ostriches, penguins, etc. birds that "fly above the earth" (day 5), or "creatures that move along the ground" (day 6)? do they lay eggs? Side: True.
Leviticus 11: this shows how Genesis divided what was on Day 5 and what was on Day 6. God is soooo smart, he makes science look like idiots pooping out of their mouths! Huh! He distinguishes water animals with and without fins! U mmm reptiles, amphibians??? So stick it in your ear, monkey man! 9 ‘These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, 11 and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. 12 Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. 13 ‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15 every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17 and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18 and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So you will ignore all the evidence of God for this one sentence, and what will it bring you if God doesn't let them find birds in their digs for knowledge. Look I'll be blunt, God is hidden from the wise and intelligent of the world. He has given you more facts to observe out of your box, but you have this as your god. Why would He give you everything, when you don't look at what He has given you? The point is, if your not His child you won't hear, and your excuses are pennies nothing more. So your pennies and your pebbles you worship, and in the end you will know you are a fool! Why do you ignore all the evidence outside of evolution? Because in it you believe you will find all the answers, yet it leaves everything still unanswered. Satan was obsessed with mutations also, and in mixing seeds. You don't even realize Sheol is swallowing you you are the serpents meal, it's deception. You are not children loved by your father, you are slaves. Don't ignore what is all around you, screaming God's existence, just because you havn't heard of a bird in the never ending digs, Digs I imagine to be teetering at the mouth of sheol! . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I know what mutation is, they are mutating right before our eyes. Most to image of the beast, some to the image of the Father. Frontal lobes, Mark of the Beast, Image of the Beast. Mind of the beast - Mind of Christ This is the marking and people are taking the mark. . Side: True.
1
point
Maybe if you looked at scripture with your science mind, you can tell me something. Do you know, you could be a teacher of why or how something said in an ancient manner of speaking is comparable to a modern concept. I think that would be smarter! So instead why don't you take what you know and investigate instead of shutting down big thoughts to answer big questions. I don't understand this way of looking at things. I am an out of the box thinker. There is no way from me to look at science of evolution, and ignore all the other unanswered questions. If I'm looking at something I'm stepping back and taking in all the info. So I don't care if biology is conclusive on having parts of one kind in another kind. I care about the bigger questions, like how does that fit into all the other things we haven't answered. I don't limit things in one direction, I look and see the many directions. I'm perceptive to input, not exclusive of selective input. I don't not look at something because of my view, I raise my view to take more in, not less in. And because I bring more in, I can make more surety of my conclusions. I conclude there is a God from a broad prespective, I'm not coming to it as one who only follows what someone says to think or believe. I'm stubborn too, but I'm not narrowly stubborn. I'm broadly stubborn. Even in issues of political debate, I want to see the big picture, like what does this piece of a issue mean, in light of all the issues it touches, not just one issue it touches. I think people are driven to stupidity, and their minds are trapped in whatever they are told by whatever they identify with. I'm not even in a church right now, no one is telling me anything. I read my Bible, and I feed myself. I ask God to show me things He wants to reveal, and anything I do get, I check for myself! I'll find a church go attend, but my focus isn't on doctrines of men, or opinions of churches. I'll measure them by what He says, not measuring Him by what they say. I understand the bigger picture than the boxes people put God into. Not all put God in a box. 30 years ago I had a spiritual experience that gave me understanding, and I know what that is like, so I'm not willing to limit my understanding, by other's limitations. So when I answered you about the last words of Jesus, I studied it that day. And it blew my mind, as I could literally see where each was in prespective from court to the last breath. But you wouldn't even consider the possibility just because it doesn't fit in your box. Honestly, I was disappointed in even apologetics of main biblical apologists. Because with a basic reading, and a little common sense reasoning and logic, I answered if they were eyewitnesses by their prespective being absolutely expected throughout their details of account. Their eyes telling details told me. Matt. He was a paranoid scared emotional mess that day. 1 He tells details of Judas, like he was leaking in that area without the other three writers. ...a) So the Pharisees I'd assume were conspiring together, probably all in one section. So if Judas really returned the silver, was distraught, then later found hung himself. ....b) And if the details Matt gives about the court room seem to be from what he can observe from lerking around behind the area the Pharisees were, then there is a pretty good chance it's an eyewitness prespective of the court room John 1 - John was with Mary, the whole time. Mary being the mother of Jesus wasn't running and hiding. ....a) Mary was inside the court room. John was with her, comforting her, while everyone else was hiding. ....b) So he is the best most detailed one on details from a ring side seat prespective. And not of the conversations of people outside the court room. ....c) So his details at court, as well as the cross are the details are from a prespective one one would record as if sitting up front. ....d) It's the same at the cross. 2 - So in the court room, John records testimonies and details as if the center hall was in his plain view. 3 - At the foot of the cross Jesus is having conversations with John ....a) No others record personal conversations of Jesus from the cross. ....b) Others record loud statements heard as if in the crowd ....c) John records what he can hear because of his position. ....d) John records "I am thirsty, the others mention Jesus calling out a statement loudly, then people running around putting vinegar on a sponge giving Jesus a sponge of bitter wine to drink. But it doesn't match what the statement was, it's like unmatched. These other guys hear a statement, then record actions that don't match what was heard loudly from in the noisy crowd! ...c) But John records I am thirsty. And them running around giving Him this awful drink. Every piece tells where all of these men are, and not one is even trying to tell anther prespective. And I can go point by point on all four, so thank you for the question, I answered it, and you still didn't like the answer, because you'd rather say what you want to conclude. It's applicable with every area of discussion regarding God and the Bible. Logic and reasoning doesn't work, blind faith doesn't work, yet it's clearly illogical, because I proved each of these four to be basic and easy to see prespective of their vantage point. But you want to argue it wrong. On what basis? What you read in someone's opinion article? Or did you apply logic, take out a pen and paper and see for yourself. Me, I saw for myself! . . Side: True.
1
point
Maybe if you looked at scripture with your science mind you wouldn't even consider the possibility just because it doesn't fit in your box So instead why don't you take what you know and investigate This is exactly what I'm asking you to do. If you have a broad view of science and the bible, then investigate and impart your wisdom by answering the questions. again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Again, here is an exact example. I have said evolution is neither a weight for or against His existence. And the only thing you are mature enough to discuss is if mom wrapped the presents. Your a child at the adult table. Come back next year, when you grow up a little! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
If it doesn't prove you wrong, then you have no reason not to answer, right? again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
Atheism is as illogical as a child believing in Santa, they find their toys arrive under the tree, and the find evidence that mom wrapped them, so in their little minds this one thing is all there is to know about Christmas. But there is a lot more important to know about Christmas than this little part, Santa. Like the economic impact locally and nationally, or the good and bad of impacts of holidays from Christmas to Mothers Day, there is so many different aspects to understand about Christmas than whether Santa where's a red suit and has a reindeer named Rudolph! There is incredible depth to know about, like foods, and families, and cultures, knowledge that can spider out to be all kinds of directions. But atheists are more like a 7 year old boy who just figured out that mom and dad are Santa. The imature mind of the child thinks everything is figured out because they have enough evidence to think mom and dad are Santa, so then there is nothing else to know. Yet Santa is the smallest thing to know, but to the smarty pants 7 year old, it's the only thing to know. Atheism is just like this logic. Now it's fine for the little child to care only about one aspect. But when sitting at the adult table discussing the financial economics, or the psychology or family or good will social impact, the child taking the whole table and making his theory about Santa the biggest conversation, is just simply juvenile! So if you didn't notice, I don't think evolution is a logical our exclusive source for if God does or doesn't exist. There is so much more outside of your little box of Chunky Legos, and that is why you are illogical. Because a reasoning mind can reason with a broad look of information and perceive a bigger logical picture, and the illogical can't find their way out of a cardboard box! . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So, does that mean you can answer the question? again - what I asked: If dogs and wolves are the same kind: isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron? isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys? isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik? isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega? isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega? isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton? Side: True.
If you didn't notice, I don't think evolution is a logical our exclusive source for if God does or doesn't exist. There is so much more outside of your little box of Chunky Legos, and that is why you are illogical. Because a reasoning mind can reason with a broad look of information and perceive a bigger logical picture, and the illogical can't find their way out of a cardboard box! . Evolution is neither a weight For or Against God's existence. And the only thing many atheists are logical enough or mature enough to discuss, is if mom wrapped the presents! Their children at the adult table. Maybe they can sit at the adult table next year, if and when they grow up a little! And have an ability to apply logic broadly, instead of itty bitty and teany weany bits characteristic of an unreasoning and illogical mind! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
If you didn't notice, I don't think evolution is a logical our exclusive source for if God does or doesn't exist. There is so much more outside of your little box of Chunky Legos, and that is why most atheists are illogical. Because a reasoning mind can reason with a broad look of information and perceive a bigger logical picture, and the illogical can't find their way out of a cardboard box! . Evolution is neither a weight For or Against God's existence. And the only thing many atheists are logical enough or mature enough to discuss, is if mom wrapped the presents! They are children at the adult table. Maybe they can sit at the adult table next year, if and when they grow up a little! And have an ability to apply logic broadly, instead of itty bitty and teany weany bits characteristic of an unreasoning and illogical mind! Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The fact that homosapiens evolved from homo erectus is enough to proven that the entire garden of eden story is complete and utter make believe. So... what alternative to you have to explain how various creatures came into being? Well evolution on a larger scale than just homoerectus - homosapien seems the most plauisble answer. Side: True.
1
point
Dogs did not evolve from wolves, they were selectively bred from wolves. Whether the selection is done by the natural environment or by people (part of the environment), it is still a selection done among heritable mutations. Did amoeba evolve from rocks? Evolution says that from the lesser can come the greater. P.S. the bible says people came from dust. Side: True.
P.S. Maybe you should read the Bible before talking about what it says...it says " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Evolution does not say anything. People who believe in evolution say dumb things. God says He made man in His own image after His own likeness, formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. You believe evolution says things when it says nothing, it's mindless, it cannot talk and it cannot cause life to emerge from non-living matter and it cannot cause intelligence to rise from mindless matter.. Then you distort the Bible which is the word of God which says you are condemned and on your way to Hell as a sinner who will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you believe in evolution? Do you think it proves you have the right to exist outside of Hell? Do you think it excuses your moral failures? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
It clearly says God made people, they did not come from dust, they came from God. I want you to get off my back and leave me alone, I don't want to talk to you any more, all you are doing is harassing me. The Bible clearly says people came from God, and you repeating that it says they came from dust is harassment, I've had enough, evolution is good for nothing and if you want to believe it keeps you out of Hell, go ahead. If you want to believe it gives you an excuse for your sins, go ahead. If you want to believe there is no God, go ahead. Believe whatever you want to believe, God gives you that freedom and allows you to have the reality void of any good thing from God in Hell if you want a world where nothing good is from God. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
It clearly says God made people, they did not come from dust, they came from God. I want you to get off my back and leave me alone, I don't want to talk to you any more, all you are doing is harassing me. The Bible clearly says people came from God, and you repeating that it says they came from dust is harassment, I've had enough, evolution is good for nothing and if you want to believe it keeps you out of Hell, go ahead. If you want to believe it gives you an excuse for your sins, go ahead. If you want to believe there is no God, go ahead. Believe whatever you want to believe, God gives you that freedom and allows you to have the reality void of any good thing from God in Hell if you want a world where nothing good is from God. There is no convincing evidence for evolution, there is only the desire of sinners to deny that God rules over them so they eagerly embrace evolution and believe in it in spite of objective science showing belief in evolution is pseudo-science and such a belief has absolutely no beneficial value for the individual or for society or for science while it always leads to fascism and genocide. Who cares if there is convincing evidence for god? What is god? A force, a thing? who cares?. Your god is a straw man, an absurdity, and to say god is not God is not an argument against God, it is an argument against your god which is an absurdity and is not God. Your god is evolution, a pitiful god which promises nothing but death and contributes nothing of value to any individual or to society. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things. You are twisting words and stretching definitions, and you are doing it to imply mutations cause things like reptiles to morph into things like birds. What is observable scientifically is not in dispute. You are twisting things to imply your belief in evolution is proved by variations and?or mutations when evolution is never observed in nature. I have studied DNA more than you, obviously, by your inability so see past your evolutionary bent which forces you to stretch definitions and twist words to fit your beliefs. You're a waste of time. You have blinders on. You should study DNA scientifically instead of according to evolutionary dictates. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things no, they aren't. Explain how you think they are different. You are twisting words and stretching definitions The reason you think this is that you obviously don't know the definitions. Side: True.
1
point
You should study DNA scientifically You should start with the very basics. http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/ https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/ Side: True.
listen, punk, I have taken college biology recently, and by the way you talk I have to believe I have studied DNA more than you as I keep up on the latest research and findings regarding DNA and all sciences as a hobby, done so pretty much all of my life and I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. Your brain is short circuited by brainwashing of evolution, so you really don't need to learn anything as you think mutations and variations are more than scientifically observable adaptations and degradation's of the gene pool and you believe they show that reptiles morphed into birds. Your teachers, assuming you took some college biology, have succeeded in teaching you how to waste a lot of time and educational expenditures believing in good for nothing evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I have taken college biology recently Then you should try to get your money back. Bring copies of your posts on this site and they can't refuse. old enough to be your grandfather Old enough to be my grandfather (I'm in my 40's) and you're just getting around to taking biology, eh? Aside from your irrelevant gibberish, do you have any response to the actual claims? Do you admit insertion mutations exist? Do you admit beneficial mutations exist? Side: True.
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute. What is stupid is your belief that reptiles morphed into birds over millions of years. I'm surprised you are past thirty. You act like a college punk skilled in internet assisted compositions to kiss up to your teachers who have you brain dead so you spout good for nothing evolution like it will excuse your immorality....and more importantly, the immorality of your dictators. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute. What is stupid is your belief that reptiles morphed into birds over millions of years. I'm surprised you are past thirty. You act like a college punk skilled in internet assisted compositions to kiss up to your teachers who have you brain dead so you spout good for nothing evolution like it will excuse your immorality....and more importantly, the immorality of your dictators. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute. What is stupid is your belief that reptiles morphed into birds over millions of years. I'm surprised you are past thirty. You act like a college punk skilled in internet assisted compositions to kiss up to your teachers who have you brain dead so you spout good for nothing evolution like it will excuse your immorality....and more importantly, the immorality of your dictator. You go on and on like a broken record repeating nothing past bio 101 with the last lessons of the class devoted to nothing but evolution after the whole class built up to the full blown indoctrination of the final chapters of Bio 101. By my own research of DNA as a hobby I have studied it more than you. I can tell I've studied it more than you because the basic stuff you harp on as if it shows you are educated is limited and far behind the ongoing studies of biology which it seems to me you know absolutely nothing about. And don't tell me to show them to you, lazy brain, do the research yourself if you want to learn. It's easy on the net, I'm not getting paid to teach you, and you are teaching me nothing as the stuff you repeat is like studying my navel if I let you keep holding my feet in your slow brained mud. Because your brain is stuck in Bio 101 evolution, you have lost your ability to look at DNA by objective science to learn things you are not seeing and you think you know a little about mutations so you think your belief in reptiles morphing into birds is proven when it is only believed as dictated by your philosophy and not by true science which can be observed and shown to others so they can observe the thing you can observe. You believe reptiles morphed into birds but you cannot show it happening so it is not science. It's your belief. Evolutionary biologists are not scientists. They stopped scientific investigation of nature after they decided they can use their basic understanding to support their belief in evolution......a worthless good for nothing belief in evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute. As long as you're saying things like: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things", then, yes, there is still dispute. nothing past bio 101 If you can't get past the bio 101 topics, it would be useless to discuss things that depend on you understanding them. the basic stuff you harp on I harp on the basics because your arguments still don't agree with them. I have studied it more than you Then, here's your chance professor - show us all how wise you are by making sense of your claim: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things" Side: True.
The dispute is over nothing but your belief that mutations cause things like reptiles to evolve into birds. That's silly, it's a belief, it's not science. You are making the dispute against God, and it's a completely fraudulent fake science trying to disguise the fact that it's just a fairy tale. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You harp on the basics because you believe in evolution and do not want to move beyond your programmed answers which are based on your belief. Observable science does not show evolution. Mutations, adaptations, and variations are not evolution, and generations of mutations combined with survival of the fittest is not evolution, you can believe evolution is happening but it cannot be shown. It cannot be shown because it is not there, it's not happening, never has, never will. Bacteria do not evolve, they remain bacteria. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
listen, punk, I have taken college biology recently, and by the way you talk I have to believe I have studied DNA more than you Errrr shame you havent studied evolutionary theory. I cant see how anyone can believe you have studied it giving your comments about animals `wantng' to evolve and asking why your cat doesnt evolve into a dog. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
Your descriptions of mutations are too broadly used so you imply adaptations are beneficial mutations when it is programmed survival mechanisms in the organism. The bacteria remain bacteria, they survived gradual changes in their environment by adapting. Because all you want to do with your opinion is support belief in evolution, you do not look beyond your conclusions of mutations equaling evolution to try to understand what is really happening. The bacteria in the subject video adapted. There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited, and the bacteria which adapted are still bacteria ,they have not evolved. They did not mutate into a new animal, they did not change from being bacteria and they never will. You are trying to twist adaptations triggered by environmental stresses into evolution. It's not evolution. Evolutionists like to call it "micro-evolution" when it's not evolution at all. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
you imply adaptations are beneficial mutations when it is programmed survival mechanisms in the organism An "adaptation" is a heritable mutation that is favored in a given environment. your conclusions of mutations equaling evolution Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited limited by what? Side: True.
Your whole equation cannot be shown in nature, you can only show it in cartoon animations, it is not science, you can believe it if you want to. Mutation is not evolution. What is the survival mechanism limited by? You can't figure that out? Try jumping into a fire and see how long your survival mechanism's mutations will keep you from frying. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Your whole equation cannot be shown in nature What part of mutation, heritability, or selection do you need more evidence for? What is the survival mechanism limited by? You said: The bacteria in the subject video adapted. There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited. The "something" here is mutation, heritability, and selection. - what are those limited by? Side: True.
....................................... Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Dawkins' response to the video you mention: http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/ Side: True.
1
point
Dawkins' response was nothing but a lengthy explanation of why he believes in evolution and how he assumes his beliefs are true so the question "Can you show one example of any mutation or process of evolution adding new DNA to the genome of any creature?" was completely brushed under the carpet and ignored while Dawkins makes a career out of avoiding the questions with long distraction discourses. And you are doing the same thing.........a total waste of time, evolution is good for nothing, it does not give you an excuse for your moral depravity. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Evolution should be dismissed. It's lies, it's a fabrication, it's good for nothing, it's a vain (futile) philosophical system which has nothing good in it. It should not only be dismissed, it should be outlawed from any science curricula in publicly funded schools. It belongs in philosophy and religion classes, not in any field of science. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I read Dawkins' explanation of why he dodged that question, I watched a video of him explaining why he dodged it, all he did was go into this long explanation of what he things is evidence of evolution while he NEVER answered the question. He avoided the question completely with the idea that if he keeps on talking and talking about evolution, people will forget the question which almost put him into shock when it was directly asked to him in a way that only a yes or a no would be the correct answer, and if yes were the correct answer the follow up would be to show one time when any mutation or process of evolution adds new DNA to the genome. Dawkins never answered the question with a yes and supportive follow up, the honest answer would be "no, but I can tell you all about why I believe in evolution." That would have been more respectable than what he actually did which was to try to distract away from the question by alluding to volumes of his stunted science which he ceased practicing when he learned he could make more money by writing anti-Christian books than he could make as a biological research scientist. You are following in Dawkins footsteps acting like you know something when in reality you have stopped learning. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Your arguments are designed not to look at nature scientifically but rather to support your belief in evolution, therefore your arguments are twisted because your belief dictates what you interpret. You're just trying to waste time getting me wrapped up trying to reason with a programmed machine which is what evolution has turned your brain into. Dawkins dismissed the question, never answered it when if he wanted to be honest he would have said "no". After answering honestly, he could have went on his spiel of why he believes in evolution but he acted like he never heard the question, he acted like the questioner asked, "even though you cannot show me any mutation or process of evolution which adds new DNA to the gene pool, please explain why you believe in evolution". Until Dawkins answers the question as asked with a yes or a no, he is the one doing the dismissing and the reason he is dismissing the question is because it cannot be answered scientifically and can ONLY be answered by talking about why he believes in evolution regardless of being unable to show any mutation or process of evolution adding new DNA to the genome of any organism. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
yeah.........they all say pretty much the same thing, and much of what they say is verbatim quotes. When I first started doing this a couple years ago and realized how so many people say exactly the same things, around a dozen talking points they can't get past, I did a little web searching to try to figure out where they are getting it from and I came up with two of the revered leaders of anti-christian popular culture being Dawkins and Price. There are a couple others, Zeitgurst or something like that.....they present their beliefs as factual with unending lies about history and science, bold faced and easily shown fallacious lies, but people buy into it because they have been brainwashed to hate Christianity believing morality will deprive them of pleasure. The Bible is clear and simple, the truth is simple to those who have understanding, they are scoffers who walk after their own lusts. It's all because they love their sins more than life, they love darkness rather than light, their deeds are evil and they avoid the truth which in light would expose them.....they are afraid of their own sins, but they love the pleasure they get from it so they use atheism and evolution as an excuse for their sin, and think their lives are justified by dying. Side: True.
We tend to say things in complicated ways, the Bible addresses these things simply and clearly, bluntly and powerfully........such as Romans 1...it answers and explains all of their garbage, it addresses evolution and atheism clearly.... 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Verses 21-22 are atheism, verses 23- 25 are evolution, the following verses show the moral depravity of those choices, and the preceding verses (18-20) show that they know exactly who God is and that they have no excuse for denying Him. Side: True.
How and why you are changing meanings of words and stretching definitions as your belief in evolution demands. If you read this, you might start to learn something outside of your Dawkins box (coffin) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I had read that before giving you Dawkins' response and thought it was so poor (and agrees to things that you do not) that you would not use it, but here ya go. "Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology." This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity. "during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated." Duplicitous again as it ignores Dawkins' actual argument - that the process of duplication (along with the mutations that occur during the process) can increase the information capacity, but that it is natural selection that adds the non-redundant information to the gene pool. Both of the above are proved duplicitous later on when they admit: "Dawkins would argue that the information in the environment is transferred into the genome of the organism. Fair enough." and "We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act." At the end of the day, even the ID supporters are forced to admit: "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." - Behe and "Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution" - Gilbert, Opitz, Raff and "Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous." - Luski (the response author) So, they believe in beneficial mutations, common descent, and microevolution, and, as Dawkins points out, they believe that information is added, they just believe an intelligent designer adds it rather than mutation and natural selection. Do you also believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, microevolution, and beneficial mutations? Also, I've given examples of observed increases in functionality and the creation of new genes - no matter which definition you use, these would be an increase in information. Side: True.
I"m really not interested in debating you. You just want to go on and on and on behind your brick wall of evolution not looking past the tiny bits and pieces you think prove that reptiles morphed into birds over millions of years. Observable science is not in dispute, you interpret observable data in ways dictated by your beliefs, and in so doing, you stop learning the same as so many so-called evolutionary biologists remain stuck believing most DNA is junk when in reality scientists both atheistic and deists continue to study and find more and more observable and presentable proof that there is no junk DNA, simply functions which are not yet fully understood. Your "increasing of information capacity" is not equal to evolution. You are going out in the twilight zone of your beliefs when you imply mutations and/or variations equal evolution. You can study mutations and variations forever and never see evolution. You can see variations and mutations. Period. Adding your evolutionary beliefs is a distraction, an unproductive and useless waste of time and it won't excuse your immorality. The whole issue of Dawkins, and yourself though you are trying to ignore it, is that you believe evolution excuses your immorality so you you cling to evolution like it will keep you out of Hell. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The reason you remain stuck on mutations equaling evolution is that the more DNA and cellular structure is looked at objectively, the more and more difficult it becomes to support belief in evolution. Your brain is stuck, your parroting of evolutionary dictates of how you interpret data makes you useless as a scientist and somehow you feel like if you can keep yourself convinced that evolution is your god, you can keep yourself out of Hell. You're trying to waste time dragging me through your mud of primordial ooze which fills your brain with excuses for your sin; excuses which only lead to death and won't keep you out of Hell. That's all evolution is, it's a power play pushed by those who think they will rule the world after enough fools are convinced they are nothing but smart monkeys so it's ok to wipe out 95 percent of the population to preserve the species and further evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
hahahahhaha..........yeah, it was too boring. You have nothing to talk about. Don't expect me to tolerate you trying to do in my discussions what was too boring for you to do in your own discussion so you got so sick of yourself you deleted it. That's how sin is. It's self-sickening, and you want to make the record of it go away. You are stuck with every word, thought, and action, God has it all on record, and you can't delete it, you owe God for how you used your time. You need God's mercy or you won't escape His justice, you will pay for your sins with your life dying forever if God Himself has not paid for your sins with His own blood. By rejecting Christ Jesus as your Savior, you are denying yourself of any means of being justified to live outside of Hell. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You might want to escape justice because it will hold you in eternal dying in the fire of Hell paying for being a sinner against God. The only escape is what God Himself did for you when He died in your place and paid your price so you can be forgiven in His resurrection........and it's a gift from God, it's not something you do to escape justice, it's a gift you receive from God if you will repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Justice is going against you, you are being executed, you are a dead man walking on death row with no way of escape. There is a Redeemer who paid your price in death to buy you back from Hell. Only God can do this for you, you can't do it for yourself, and you can't be redeemed if you will not believe on your Redeemer, accept what He did for you, and ask God in Jesus' name to save you from Hell. You are fighting against your own salvation, fighting against your own life when you are rejecting the One who died for you to save you from Hell. The way you seem so twisted in things you say and how you distort everything really seems like you are smoking weed. Who messed up your mind so you can't understand simple truth? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution. It does not, the animal remains the same animal, the genome of that animal is still the genome of the animal. You're not getting a new animal out of an old animal. The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as, they did not evolve, they adapted as their DNA allowed them to adapt under controlled circumstances. When you can show bacteria turning into fish, then you are showing evolution and you can't show it because it does not happen. You believe it happens because you want to believe your immorality is excused by your god which is nature to which you ascribe supernatural power of being able to cause life to emerge out of non-life and consciousness to arise from lifeless matter..........and you have been taught to embrace this vain philosophy as means of destroying as many people as possible to bring forth a new world order where a few elites think they can evolve and rule and control the universe......it's all about trying to conquer God and take over creation which is His. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution. I am saying that you are incorrect in claiming information does not increase. The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as No, it is not "the same" - it has different DNA and different functionality. Side: True.
It's bacteria. It's no different from the bacteria it came from any more than dogs are different from wolves. Changing the expression of information is not adding information to the genome of the creature. Dawkins knows this, and that is why he dodged the question. You dodge the question by stretching definitions and ignoring science with your brain stuck on "mutation causes evolution, it caused reptiles to morph into birds over quazillions of years." You are stuck on this because you think it excuses your moral failure. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
It's no different from the bacteria it came from any more than dogs are different from wolves. If differences in body shape/size, fur/skin color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. are all allowed, then: Is the Coelacanth different from Eusthenopteron any more than dogs are different from wolves? Is the Eusthenopteron different from Panderichthys any more than dogs are different from wolves? Is the Panderichthys different from Tiktaalik any more than dogs are different from wolves? Is the Tiktaalik different from Acanthostega any more than dogs are different from wolves? Is the Acanthostega different from Ichthyostega any more than dogs are different from wolves? Is the Ichthyostega different from Tulerpeton any more than dogs are different from wolves? Changing the expression of information is not adding information Does adding nucleotides to the DNA strand add information? Is improved functionality in a given environment added information? Side: True.
1
point
Are you saying "increase in information" equals evolution? As I have told you many times: Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection Some of those mutations are insertion mutations which add nucleotides to the DNA. Are you going to dodge the question? It is you who has repeatedly dodged the questions: Do insertion mutations exist? Do beneficial mutations exist? Explain how:"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things" Side: True.
So you believe mutation equals evolution. Heritability and/or selection without mutation would prove only that you are the same creature as were your parents, so you have to cling to belief that mutation causes things like reptiles to morph into birds, something which can only be believed, cannot be observed, and can only be shown in cartoon animations. The way you talk, you are a mutant since you are different from your parents. You are not evolving. You are not becoming a god, and your descendants (if you have any) are not going to be gods even after millions of generations which are highly unlikely to occur. Evolutionary teaching is going to destroy your descendants if not you. Suck it up. You are twisting words, twisting meanings, as your belief of mutation equally evolution dictates you must. That is not science. You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution. It does not, the animal remains the same animal, the genome of that animal is still the genome of the animal. You're not getting a new animal out of an old animal. The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as, they did not evolve, they adapted as their DNA allowed them to adapt under controlled circumstances. When you can show bacteria turning into fish, then you are showing evolution and you can't show it because it does not happen. You believe it happens because you want to believe your immorality is excused by your god which is nature to which you ascribe supernatural power of being able to cause life to emerge out of non-life and consciousness to arise from lifeless matter..........and you have been taught to embrace this vain philosophy as means of destroying as many people as possible to bring forth a new world order where a few elites think they can evolve and rule and control the universe......it's all about trying to conquer God and take over creation which is His. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
you have to cling to belief that mutation causes things like reptiles to morph into birds And you seem to believe that mutations can't add anything to the genome and are somehow limited by something that you haven't yet described. If evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column) were unreliable, then scientists should not be able to determine a period of time when one animal transitioned into another animal, then look for fossils in relevant strata and find transitional fossils. However, scientists did date fish fossils and tetrapod fossils, set out to look in a part of the geologic column between those dates and found a transitional fossil - Tiktaalik. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ This is evidence for evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column). Side: True.
2
points
Organisms are very limited in their ability to adapt because they can only work with the genetic code they have. They can't adapt because organisms as an individual do not evolve- POPULATIONS do. reproduction through generation produces natural selection, etc, etc, then you have adaption. Side: True.
Uh huh, sure. Show me a population of lizards turning into birds. If you believe it happened over kazillions of years, I think you are gullible and if you feel like I'm calling you a name, well, at least I didn't say it's stupid to believe in evolution even though it is stupid to believe in evolution.......but I didn't say that. I didn't call you stupid, I said believing in evolution is a stupid thing which many highly intelligent and personable people like yourself do. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
So your argument against evolution is that people that believe in it are gullible and that it's a stupid thing to do? Nice use of evidence. Lizards turning into birds? I've covered this. Lizards don't, nor never will, become birds, because they're already diverged from one another. Some reptiles diverged into modern day lizards, while others diverged into birds- dinosaurs are a transition for this, as scales began to become feathers. So no, a population of lizards will never "turn into" birds. Furthermore, I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant. Evolution accounts for the divergence of species into one another over time- it says nothing about a modern day species suddenly becoming another modern day species. Side: True.
It's the facts. If you believe in evolution, you have to be gullible, it is stupid to believe in evolution. I tried to believe in it when it was being pretty much shoved down my throat everywhere I turned when I was young child in the sixties. Maybe I was ten or a little older before I could no longer tell myself to try to believe in evolution. When I first knew what they were saying when I was very young, seven I guess, I knew what it meant if it were true...it would mean life has no real purpose and value, and all that matters would be to avoid discomfort and try to take pleasure to pass the time before bad things happen, and with life being random chance and meaningless, there would be no such thing as right or wrong other than whatever I feel I want it to be, and others who are stronger than me might feel like victimizing me and nobody could really say they are wrong. As a little child, I knew believing in evolution would mean believing life is futile and meaningless......and I never could quite buy into it fully. I finally concluded that there must be something outside of the boundaries of material, outside of the universe, and God must be there. It was in my early twenties that I realized He is indeed present and alive in Jesus Christ, I met Him when I bowed to the Father seeing my need of mercy, believed on Jesus in His resurrection, and He came in to me and gave me a new heart born of His Holy Spirit, with new desires to honor His name, and there is fullness of joy at His right hand. I will serve Him gladly today and forever. Believing in evolution will do nothing but get you serving your time in Hell as a sinner against God. Jesus paid for your sins so you can be saved from Hell, but you want to believe evolution sets you free from God's rule which is for your own good? You are set for your own destruction with your mind closed by believing in evolution. It's no good, you can keep it if you want to. I'm no sucker. It's stupid to believe in evolution. You have to be gullible to believe in it. As a seven year old child, I had more brains than you, I knew to be suspicious of the motives of people who were trying to cram evolution down my throat. I was suspicious of the motives of people who were composing the writings and television commercials and programming which promoted evolution as fact they wanted me to believe. Why was it so important to those people that they felt they had to tell me over and over and over again that my life is ultimately meaningless and of no real value? You should be suspicious of them, but you have bought into evolution like a sucker and it's bent on destroying your life......and somehow you think death relieves you so evolution is a good thing...it's nothing but death, loving death, complete perversion of what is good in life which is a gift from God showing He is good. Life means God is good. Life does not mean it's stupid and has no purpose. It's stupid to believe in evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Huh, I'm opposite you then. Evolution makes more sense to me after Christianity was shoved down my throat at an early age. However, some things just don't make sense. I too believe in a God- a deist God who set the universe in order, therefore resulting in evolution. So what do you believe in terms of universal creation? Side: True.
Evolution does not fit with God's character, evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible, and there is no shortage of hard science which contradicts all theories of evolution so that evolution should not be taught as science in any field in any publicly funded institution at any level. God created all things, He spoke them into existence, He formed them by His Word. It was not a difficult thing for God to create the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six literal days. God could have done it all in one day if He wanted to, but He had a purpose for doing it in six days so that's what He did. There is nothing that can be observed in nature by any scientific means which rules out these statements of God's creation. All "science" presented as "proof" of things contrary to the above statements of the Creation is debatable when it is not outright fraud. Much of modern science in all fields supporting evolution is fraudulent and can easily be show to be fraudulent. When data is presented and then claimed to be proof of a believe when that data can be adequately or better explained according to different hypothesis, the presentation of the data as a proof is fraudulent. Though they are in the minority, there are many highly accomplished and currently working scientists who agree with me, agreeing with the Bible, in all of these statements. One of them invented the MRI machine which revolutionized modern medicine and contributed vital parts to space projects, I forget if it was the Hubble telescope or the ISS. Whatever happened to you in whatever it is you are calling "Christianity", you were offended and put up a brick wall in your mind which you feel blocks God out so your sins remain hidden. The gospel of God, the good news that He took on human form, died for our sins, and conquered death bodily resurrecting and leaving the tomb He was buried in proving He has power to forgive our sins and give us eternal life as He is God incarnate and able to save all who trust in Him........ The gospel remains true. Let God be true, and every man a liar. You have to look past the wrongs of people and look at the righteousness of God. "People acted bad in church" is not an excuse for rejecting the only One who can save you from your sins. The pleasure of your pride and sins is not worth eternity in Hell. Those people who offended you are not God, you have to answer to God and you need to seek Him while He may be found before it's too late. I suggest you get a good old King James Bible and put all your past out of your mind while you slowly read the gospel according to John, and start with a little prayer like "Oh God, I want to believe you can give me the same resurrection power which is claimed to be in your Son, I really want to believe it but it seems too good to be true, but I'll try to keep an open mind for you to show me if you can while I read what they say is your holy word". If you seek the Lord with all your heart, you will find Him....you have to start somewhere, sometime, or you will never be saved and you'll end up separated from God by your sins forever in the fire of Hell. I do not want that for anybody, I do not enjoy the idea of knowing most people are going to wake up in Hell finding they have no way out of the fire. Don't be closed minded to the Lord just because a bunch of people calling themselves Christian in your past were buffoons who turned you off. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
God created the universe in its entirety in six days. Considering he's supposedly omnipotent, I don't doubt that- I am confused as to why he didn't do it instantaneously, instead drawing in out for a week. One thing I do want to know. God is an omnipotent being. Why did God rest on the seventh day? Also, you talk about pure, observable science often, yet creation of the universe in six days seems neither observable nor does it have practically any evidence to back the claim up besides hear-say. Side: True.
1
point
The stuff they are telling you happened in evolution is all fabrications, it's all made up, it's all lies which some or most of the proponents actually believe. Scales did not morph into feathers, reptiles did not morph into birds, what accounts for the diversity of animal life is that God spoke them into being by His word. Life does not emerge from non-living matter, intelligence does not rise out of mindless matter. The Living God by His wisdom and power created all things by His will, He told them to come into existence and His Word is His Way. The people who brainwashed you into evolution are making a piece of meat out of you, and you will be devoured in it. It's promises are false, it's premises are false, it's promotion is fraudulent, it's precedents are nothing but evil , it's progress is tyrannical, and it's antecedent is unending death. Keep believing you can replace God with evolution and you lose your soul in Hell and your knees will bow in Hell at the name of Jesus and your tongue will confess that he is LORD....and there will be extra for you to pay for every person you influence to believe your way so they plunge themselves in sin into Hell the same as you are doing. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. He that believeth not is condemned already. Too bad for you if you will not believe. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Correct, RNA world is just a hypothesis, but it's the most likely one. However, we can see scales to feathers based on the fossil record- it's a much better theory than spontaneous generation at creation, with species constantly dying until extinction. Brainwashing? No way. I was taught critical thinking in my biology class as well, specifically the idea of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas, which the theory of evolution has. Side: True.
That does defeat the argument that you think animals change their DNA to adapt to the environment. How you feel you can debate against evolution is beyond me. Arrogance I suppose. Who needs to understand something to debate about it anyway? Just keep ranting and ravin and calling people idiots and youll be fine. Side: True.
1
point
Atfag acts like he thinks he is my monkey which rides my back and puts on a show, drawing attention to himself like one of those little monkeys people carry around...I know a lady who travels around with a monkey doing cute little shows at county fairs. Atfag reminds me of that monkey, depending on me for his show. Side: True.
Indeed, Mr. Trag. The primary and most infuriating problem in dealing with the zealots is that the vast majority of them do not adequately comprehend the workings of the very scientific theories they so smugly refute. Hell, we have folks here on CD who boisterously decry Evolution, and tell me that we are NOT descended from monkeys! LOL. I cannot count the times I have corrected them on that misconception, but apparently my patient teachings are falling on deaf ears. (Or, more accuratly, falling on hopelessly deluded minds). So, taking into account all of this, can you really expect any of them to understand the nuances of DNA? Or know that, as you correctly claimed, Evolution is NOT based on an organism "tweaking" its DNA in order to better thrive in its given environment? SS Side: True.
Mutations do not cause evolution with or without "heritability and selection". Believing things like monkeys mutated until your mother emerged from their gene pool is silly. The reason you believe this silliness is that you think it excuses your immorality. The reason your brain is stuck on insertion and deletion mutations in belief that they equal evolution across kadillions of generations is desperation of keeping God out of your thinking because you are comfortable in your sin. Of course mutations happen, idiot. They can be scientifically observed. They do not cause creatures to morph into different creatures. What you are calling "adding information" is implying a creature over generations is morphing into a different creature. The "adding of information" is not what you are presenting it as. It is not growth in the genome of the creature, it is not the addition of information required for a bird to hatch from a reptile's egg or any incremental change in that direction. Again, Dawkins did not answer the question of new information being added to the genome of any creature, in a way which can be shown through any mutation or process of evolution because he knows it cannot be shown, and you cannot show it. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
you have different DNA than your parents, yet you are the same creature as they are. You may be mutant and your brain not functioning due to belief in evolution precluding scientific investigation, but you are still the same creature as your parents, even though your DNA is different. The genome has not changed just because you were born mutated. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
This is exactly why I say that basically all fossils are transitional fossils. Fish didn't give birth to lizards. Their children were slightly different, and different environments favored or disfavored some of those differences, repeat. Human attempts at general classification have issues dealing with this pattern, but that doesn't make it untrue. Side: True.
Your DNA contains a record of your ancestors, but you aren’t a carbon copy of any one of them. The particular mix of DNA you inherit is unique to you. You receive 50% of your DNA from each of your parents, who received 50% of theirs from each of their parents, and so on. If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor. Acquired genetic mutations do NOT contravene the fact we inherit exact DNA from our parents. SS Side: True.
You have not evolved, slappy. sorry. You will always be what you always were, and if you have children they will be like you the same as you are like your parents. You can't go back, and you can't get out of reality be believing evolution destroys you in death. Evolution will destroy you in death alright, but it wont' get you out of reality and it won't get you out of Hell. Side: True.
My DNA contains a record of my ancestors? You mean a criminal record, right? It tells of all the lies, perversions, hatreds of their hearts, thefts............ Or do you mean a record like when you find a pile of deer bones in the woods, you know a deer's carcass was left there with no record of how many fights the deer had been in? You see, you only want a record of lifelessness, you want to get out of the record of your crimes and I have bad news for you, you carry your record forever and you cannot justify yourself to keep yourself alive or out of Hell. Your record testifies against you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
you have different DNA than your parents, yet you are the same creature as they are. You may be mutant and your brain not functioning due to belief in evolution precluding scientific investigation, but you are still the same creature as your parents, even though your DNA is different. The genome has not changed just because you were born mutated Unless of course your uncle was a monkey and your mother was a cow. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
",..... but that it is natural selection that adds the non-redundant information to the gene pool." You can only show this in cartoon animations, and when pseudo-scientists talk about how they believe it happened their speeches do not even attempt to hide the fact that it's all speculation. That's not science. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Here is your evidence of evolution in a brief video. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Do germ-line cells really suffer less damage? When DNA was discovered to be the carrier of inheritance, Weissman’s germ-plasm theory gave rise to the ‘immortal strand hypothesis.’ When the DNA of an embryonic stem cell replicates itself, it was thought that the ‘old’ strand would remain with the self-renewing ‘mother’ stem cell, while the newly constructed daughter strand proceeds down the path of differentiation into a body cell. In this way, the ‘old’ strand would remain error free—because it has not suffered any copying errors—and thus becomes effectively immortal. However, a research team at the Howard Hughes Memorial Institute recently tested this theory using the stem cells that produce blood, and found that they segregate their chromosomes randomly.27 That is, the ‘immortal strand hypothesis’ is wrong. If stem cells are not given this kind of preferential treatment then it is reasonable to conclude that germ-line cells are also subject to the same molecular damage as somatic cells. This is confirmed by the observation that human fertility exhibits damage long before age-related diseases take over. A single human lifetime is enough to show very significant mutation damage, even in our reproductive cells. Haldane’s dilemma The severe contradictions that these findings pose for neo-Darwinian theory corroborate what has become known as Haldane’s dilemma. J.B.S. Haldane was one of the architects of neo-Darwinism who pioneered its application to population biology. He realized that it would take a long time for natural selection to fix an advantageous mutation in a population—fixation is when every member has two copies of an allele, having inherited it from both mother and father. He estimated that for vertebrates, about 300 generations would be required, on average, where the selective advantage is 10%. In humans, with a 20-year generation time and about 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, only about 1,000 such advantageous mutations could have been fixed. Haldane believed that substitution of about 1,000 alleles would be enough to create a new species, but it is not nearly enough to explain the observed differences between us and our closest supposed relatives. The measured difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes amounts to about 125 million nucleotides, which are thought to have arisen from about 40 million mutation events.28 If only 1000 of these mutations could have been naturally selected to produce the new (human) species, it means the other 39,999,000 mutations were deleterious, which is completely consistent with the reviews showing that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Consequently, we must have degenerated from the apes, which is an absurd conclusion. According to Kirschner and Gerhart’s facilitated variation theory,29 life consists of two main components—conserved core processes (the structure and machinery in cells) and modular regulatory processes (the signalling circuits and switches that operate the machinery and provide a built-in source of natural variation). The 40 million ‘mutation’ differences between humans and chimps are therefore much more reasonably explained as 40 million modular differences between the design of chimps and the design of humans. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Haldane’s dilemma 1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.). Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published. 2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following: • The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection. • Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation. • Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon. • Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference. • ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999). Side: True.
The math remains the same for every single apish animal if there are billions of them. It does not add up no matter how many individuals you claim the population had, and no matter how much doubling of mutations you imply....while you seem to forget that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental in the animal which is mutant. He estimated that for vertebrates, about 300 generations would be required, on average, where the selective advantage is 10%. In humans, with a 20-year generation time and about 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, only about 1,000 such advantageous mutations could have been fixed. Haldane believed that substitution of about 1,000 alleles would be enough to create a new species, but it is not nearly enough to explain the observed differences between us and our closest supposed relatives. The measured difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes amounts to about 125 million nucleotides, which are thought to have arisen from about 40 million mutation events.28 If only 1000 of these mutations could have been naturally selected to produce the new (human) species, it means the other 39,999,000 mutations were deleterious, which is completely consistent with the reviews showing that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Consequently, we must have degenerated from the apes, which is an absurd conclusion. According to Kirschner and Gerhart’s facilitated variation theory,29 life consists of two main components—conserved core processes (the structure and machinery in cells) and modular regulatory processes (the signalling circuits and switches that operate the machinery and provide a built-in source of natural variation). The 40 million ‘mutation’ differences between humans and chimps are therefore much more reasonably explained as 40 million modular differences between the design of chimps and the design of humans. You're just a waste of time, you are not looking at science objectively, you are twisting things to fit your beliefs when true science shows your beliefs are not possible, can never be shown, are never seen. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2. The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion.
So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well. The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. Uh - no. not since the fusion happened before the emergence of the species homo sapien. Also, lots of people have 47 (Down syndrome) and we've found a healthy person with 44 ref The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes The old - whatever happened, God did it - idea. Side: True.
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2. The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion. Your "ref" is nothing but a discourse on how populations become separated and unable to interbreed with other populations they bred with in previous generations. The premise of the whole thing, summed up in the "Abstract" is begging the question of belief in a hypothesis of things like reptiles morphing into birds when nothing in your presentation shows this is possible or shows that is is happening or ever happened in the past. The thesis shows observable science, but the motivation of the one presenting the studies is to say " rob translocation can provide material for evolution." The premise of the abstract is that the writer believes things like reptiles morph into birds over many many many many many generations, and while the study is well put together regarding observation of nature it leaves off science when it is used to support belief in evolution. The writer of this hypothesis also ignores the scientific evidence presented in the first paragraph which by observation and simple common sense logical deduction precludes any species of primate morphing into people. You completely fail to address the sound science and simple logic presented in the paragraph at the top of this post. You're burying your head in the sand trying to hide your sins in evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Your losing it there, your elevator is missing some floors.....God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup. Apes have 48 chromosonses, people have 46. It would not be intelligent to create people with 48 chromosones, it would be stupid because they would be apes and not people. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind As I already pointed out, there is evidence of the fusion: - Vestigial centromere. Chromosomes generally have one centromere - human chromosome 2 has two. - Vestigial telomeres. Telomeres are, by definition, generally found at the ends of chromosomes, but human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle. -The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. Here is a comparison showing the number and banding between human and chimpanzee chromosomes for people to judge for themselves. It would not be intelligent to create people with 48 chromosones, it would be stupid because they would be apes and not people. In your previous post, you say "It takes a lot more than a number 2 fusion to get a human from an ape" and here you seem to say that all it takes is chromosome count - you should probably pick one. As I've already mentioned - not all people have 46 chromosomes. I'll add, not all monkeys have 48. Some have less than 30 and some have more than 60 ref You should also take a look at the Muntiacus muntjac - the male has 7 chromosomes and the female has 6 - while a different species, the Reeve's muntjac, has 46. Side: True.
You have to abandon logic and rational though to believe apish critters morphed into people. Most of the time, scientists are not liars and are genuinely trying to discover and understand the laws of the universe. But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it. For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans. During the first half of the 20th century, that fact would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce. During the first half of the 20th century, there was a ferocious war between evolution theory and creationism and Darwin’s supporters were extremely hard pressed to “find the missing link.” Darwinians could not find the missing link so they simply fabricated one by faking the Piltdown Man skull. Darwinians also were determined to hide any evidence that contradicted their beloved evolution theory. That is why atheist scientists simply concocted a lie and told us apes and humans both have 24 pairs of chromosomes. An atheist scientist named Theophilus Painter took the lead and published a paper in 1921 claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Other atheist scientists “confirmed” this in other scientific papers. It was not until 1956 that the fraud came to an end because evolution theory had gained enough support to not need to be buttressed by the 24 chromosome lie. The “apes and humans have the same number of chromosome lie” had done its damage to the truth - Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all pointed to the “24 chromosome lie” as a reason for them to ban the teaching of creationism from German, Russian and Chinese schools. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2. The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
"Vestigial" only means some evolutionist has been unable to find the purpose of something in the organism and has decided it has no purpose and it is leftover junk from the evolution process. That's not science, that's anti-science, it's abandoning research. Fortunately, a group of scientists with varying atheistic and deistic beliefs are working to find, and progressing steadily in finding the purpose of what was previously labeled "junk DNA" which was declared to be leftover from evolutionary processes and then ignored by ignorant pseudo-scientists who care more about promoting evolution than they care about understanding nature. It's pitiful the way evolutionists ignore modern scientific research and still cling to "vestigial" which is nothing but a cop out saying "we see no purpose for this, so it is junk leftover from evolution and that's all we need to know about it" and they use that cop out to take a snooze so they don't have to do the hard, and often low paying, biological research trying to find out what the purpose of the matter is. Then idiots applaud their work and buy their books, and they are hailed as the god Dawkins. If you want a ref link, find it yourself. It's very easy to do, you seem to be pretty good at pulling links out of your hat. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
If you don't think they are vestigial, then tell us what the purpose would be of a second centromere and extra telomeres would be on a chromosome. And, why they just so happen to line up where one would expect during the process of a chromosomal fusion. While you're at it, explain the benefits of wisdom teeth - perhaps they are where you get your wisdom... Side: True.
Oh, you think scientists should declare things "vestigial", say "AH HA!!!!!" MORE PROOF OF EVOLUTION!!!!", put it in all the text books and do no research to try to find what they do not understand by practical science? "Vestigial" is a belief, it's not based on science but rather on what whoever declares something to be "vestigial" wants to believe. Just because you do not understand why something is the way it is does not make it proof or even evidence of evolution. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Try to use your brain a little here, try to think logically. You'll have to temporarily forget your belief in evolution and just look at the facts. It takes a lot more than a number 2 fusion to get a human from an ape, it takes something like 40 million changes (mutations). The vast majority of mutations are detrimental. How many mutations happened when in order for an apish creature to produce people? Your making huge leaps of faith in evolution with no sound logic and no hard science showing what you believe happens, ever did happen, or ever will happen. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
So you are wasting your time promoting a good for nothing belief system.......which is really your choice, God allows you to waste your time. The problem is that this garbage is being promoted at the expense of taxpayers while dissenting science is bullied out of publicly funded institutions. There is an evil agenda behind evolution, it is designed as a brainwashing tool to condition people to believe they are nothing more than animals so there is nothing wrong with exterminating most of the world's population to prolong the survival of the species and if you have the right connections you might be in with the five percent who kill off the ninety five percent. The whole scheme is nothing but people trying to become God. Evolution is evil from Hell. Suck it up and see where it gets you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
One Athiest Lie After Another January 18, 2016 Most of the time, scientists are not liars and are genuinely trying to discover and understand the laws of the universe. But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it. For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans. During the first half of the 20th century, that fact would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce. During the first half of the 20th century, there was a ferocious war between evolution theory and creationism and Darwin’s supporters were extremely hard pressed to “find the missing link.” Darwinians could not find the missing link so they simply fabricated one by faking the Piltdown Man skull. Darwinians also were determined to hide any evidence that contradicted their beloved evolution theory. That is why atheist scientists simply concocted a lie and told us apes and humans both have 24 pairs of chromosomes. An atheist scientist named Theophilus Painter took the lead and published a paper in 1921 claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Other atheist scientists “confirmed” this in other scientific papers. It was not until 1956 that the fraud came to an end because evolution theory had gained enough support to not need to be buttressed by the 24 chromosome lie. The “apes and humans have the same number of chromosome lie” had done its damage to the truth - Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all pointed to the “24 chromosome lie” as a reason for them to ban the teaching of creationism from German, Russian and Chinese schools. We bet you did not know that atheists claimed that “apes and humans have the same number of chromosomes.” Unless you were studying genetics before 1956, you probably never knew that scientists used to claim humans and apes both had 24 pairs of chromosomes so we should offer you some evidence for this. Below is a link to Wikipedia – the link gets you to the Wikipedia biography of Theophilus Painter, the atheist scientist who published a “scientific paper” incorrectly claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus Painter It is worthy to note that even now, scientists are prevaricating about this matter and they insist they did not lie to us about humans having 24 pairs of chromosomes. Instead they tell us they made an “understandable mistake” and it was very difficult to accurately count all the way up to 24 pairs of chromosomes. It is absurd for atheists to assert that the counting of just 23 pairs of chromosomes was so difficult that none of them could do it correctly for over 30 years. Guess what? They had no trouble counting the much larger number of chromosomes for other animals, such as dogs who have 39 pairs. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
You think you have the right to exist outside of Hell, and you think evolution excuses your sins, so you have to believe in evolution and you cannot be objective in science but must twist your commentary to interpret data according to the dictates of the hypothesis of evolution and you must reject all other explanations of why things are the way they are. That's fascism, it's not science. Side: True.
1
point
You think you have the right to exist outside of Hell You keep trying to tell everyone their motivation - apparently not realizing that it is not much of an argument and that it is just as easily pointed back at you. e.g. you only believe what you believe in hopes of going to a heaven - not based on evidence. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
What you are doing is trying to justify your life. That's what evolution is about, trying to justify your sins. yes I keep saying it because it is the heart of the issue, fooling yourself into thinking you escape justice in death. Evolution is suicide, then you wake up in Hell and I will try to get people to snap out of it before it's too late. The way you act, it's probably too late for you. Wisdom teeth will give your jaw a little extra strength so it doesn't get broken quite so easily if somebody knocks you in the chops. Just because modernization of farming and cooking causes atrophy in the size and strength of our jaw bone and muscles resulting in cramping of wisdom teeth, that does not mean our wisdom teeth used to belong to monkeys and they forgot to get them back from us when we morphed from them. What's your next stupid question? The muscle in the ears which is used in facial expressions and over generations of not using our hearing so much for survival it has weakened, showing loss of function so it does not move the ears as well as it would if we used our ears more for survival? Is a person who can wiggle their ears more closely related to monkeys than you are? Your next stupid question? The tailbone? Why don't you cut your tail bone out and see what is different in the way you move or sit. That would be scientific study, instead of saying "AH HAA!!!!" We have a tailbone, proof that our uncle was a monkey!!!!!!!!" and science dies where the good Lord split ya. Side: True.
What you are doing is trying to justify your life. That's what evolution is about, trying to justify your sins. yes I keep saying it because it is the heart of the issue, fooling yourself into thinking you escape justice in death. Evolution is suicide, then you wake up in Hell and I will try to get people to snap out of it before it's too late. The way you act, it's probably too late for you. Wisdom teeth will give your jaw a little extra strength so it doesn't get broken quite so easily if somebody knocks you in the chops. Just because modernization of farming and cooking causes atrophy in the size and strength of our jaw bone and muscles resulting in cramping of wisdom teeth, that does not mean our wisdom teeth used to belong to monkeys and they forgot to get them back from us when we morphed from them. What's your next stupid question? The muscle in the ears which is used in facial expressions and over generations of not using our hearing so much for survival it has weakened, showing loss of function so it does not move the ears as well as it would if we used our ears more for survival? Is a person who can wiggle their ears more closely related to monkeys than you are? Your next stupid question? The tailbone? Why don't you cut your tail bone out and see what is different in the way you move or sit, and be sure to have a good stock of diapers because things are going to change if the tailbone is not holding some things in place. That would be scientific study, instead of saying "AH HAA!!!!" We have a tailbone, proof that our uncle was a monkey!!!!!!!!" and science dies where the good Lord split ya. Side: True.
1
point
What you are doing is trying to justify your life. Or, is religion the way you try to justify your life? Did you ever ask yourself if God gave Neanderthals a purpose? Wisdom teeth will give your jaw a little extra strength Based on what? About 100% of Mexicans don't get wisdom teeth - do they have naturally weaker jaws - or, are they one of the most prolific countries for boxing champions in the world? What's your next stupid question? Why move on to the next question before you answer any of the previous ones? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
It is not possible for me to justify my life, nor for you to justify your life. This is reality, this is not religion. If you could justify your life, your body would not be condemned to die. Hahahah......did I ever ask myself if God gave Neanderthals a purpose? Nope, can't say that I have. I do know that God created all things for His own pleasure and purpose, the purpose of all things created is for God's own pleasure. You pervert what God created you for by going against Him, you leave Him no choice but to leave you in condemnation. Your question implying wisdom teeth are leftovers of evolution is silly. Hypothetical nonsense, a stupid question I have answered enough. Side: True.
I thought you might enjoy this speaker, He is an older guy, very enjoyable. This guy brings intellect and science into what the Bible says, and presents it all very well. He has a series on YouTube - "24 hours to learn the Bible," - insight galore! He'll knock your sock off. Enjoy! You have received a YouTube video! http://www.youtube.com/ Side: True.
I"m not a Chuck Missler supporter. He teaches gap theory which goes against scripture. There is no need in any field of science to believe in millions or billions of years of time since God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Bible certainly teaches that God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. There is nothing in science which cannot fit in six literal days of creation. Please don't keep putting these teachers in my face, such as Missler and Ross, and I won't have to post the reasons for my rejection of such teachers. Side: True.
I"m not a Chuck Missler supporter. He teaches gap theory which goes against scripture. There is no need in any field of science to believe in millions or billions of years of time since God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Bible certainly teaches that God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. There is nothing in science which cannot fit in six literal days of creation. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists or "gap theory" proponents act like their way of looking at nature is the only viable way and they use fraudulent dating methods to support their belief while any scientific data which does not fit their believe is swept under the rug. Please don't keep putting these teachers in my face, such as Missler and Ross, and I won't have to post the reasons for my rejection of such teachers. Side: True.
1
point
"There is no need in any field of science to believe in millions or billions of years of time since God created the Heavens and the Earth" Except for these (and others): ---------------------------- Distant starlight When you look at an object a mile away, the light has been traveling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been traveling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place. Helioseismology The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years. Lunar retreat South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today." The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Radioactive decay Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years. Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods. Length of the prehistoric day Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each. Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral). Naica megacrystals The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years. Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, Ia diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle. Petrified wood The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years". It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions. Relativistic jets A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe. For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length. Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light. Seabed plankton layering Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating. Sedimentary varves Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers. The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves. Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time. In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve. The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth. Amino acid racemization [N]aturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception [glycine], naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture). Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old. While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind. Continental drift Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years. Cosmogenic nuclide dating The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old. Erosion Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of. In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it. Geomagnetic reversals A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old. (If the earth was only 10,000 years old, that would mean a magnetic reversal would have occurred every 58.5 years on average.) Iron-manganese nodule growth Beryllium-10 (10Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takes several million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes). Cosmic ray produced 10Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, 10Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment. Coral Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years. Fission track dating Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object. This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating. Ice layering Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing. Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists. Lack of DNA in fossils Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels. Permafrost The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood. Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth. Weathering rinds Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form. Dendrochronology Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year. Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. This is done by taking the matching up living tree rings with dead tree rings, which go on longer than the living rings. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years. Human Y-chromosomal ancestry The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. The most recent calculations put this common ancestor as having lived 340,000 years ago. Oxidizable carbon ratio dating Oxidizable carbon ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%. Rock varnish Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 µm and 40 µm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 µm of accumulation are very rare. Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old. Thermoluminescence dating Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released). Although this technique can date objects up to approximately 230,000 years ago, is only accurate on objects up to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth. ---------------------------- Paraphrased from here Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I'm not going to waste my time on you. If you want to see the other side of the argument, you can look it up yourself. You interpret things only according to your beliefs. You don't have to do that, it's backwards science which demands you ignore contradictory data which shows your conclusions wrong and/or open to interpretation fitting models contrary to your beliefs. Side: True.
1
point
I looked up your junk a long time ago. I always read both sides. Evolution dictates that you can interpret data only to fit evolutionary belief. I look at the teachings of evolutionists, and then I look at how their opinions can be shown to be wrong, non-conclusive, and/or open to contrasting views. You've got your mind closed to true science which contradicts evolutionary belief, trying to get you to be objective is a waste of time. Look up the arguments against your beliefs for yourself if you want to. I do it often, always trying to understand the way fools believe in evolution and how science shows their beliefs are silly. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
God create the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six literal days. That's history, it is far easier to show evidence for it scientifically than it is to show evidence for evolution as in reality there is no evidence for evolution because it never happened, never will happen, and is not happening now. But you will not listen. Like many ungodly people, you know that if God is there, then your sins have separated you from Him and you have a problem you have to deal with. You're burying your head in the sand trying to find fossils while you think the sand you bury your head in protects you from God. God wants you to be saved from your sins, and you want to be buried in your sin.. Dumb. Side: True.
There are a lot of things in nature which could not be possible if the universe were billions of years old. I suggest you read about those things for yourself. You can find them easily on the web...that is, if your evolutionary brain permits you to think outside of your coffin. Side: True.
1
point
Don't cry now, I'm walking away from you and you'll have to beat your dead horse without listening to me telling you how foolish it is to beat a dead horse. You rode your horse, Evolution, into the ground and I guess it collapsed on your foot and broke your leg so you can't walk away from it. Beating that horse isn't going to set you free, Bob. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
A god is something like evolution which is not worthy of worship. Of course a thing like that is not God. Why do you have to create a straw man which is not God, and declare your straw man is not worthy of worship.......well duhhhhh, of course your created absurdity is not worthy of worship, it's not God. Sometimes I really think people who talk like you are missing part of their brain. Side: True.
A god is something like evolution which is not worthy of worship. Of course a thing like that is not God. Why do you have to create a straw man which is not God, and declare your straw man is not worthy of worship.......well duhhhhh, of course your created absurdity is not worthy of worship, it's not God. Sometimes I really think people who talk like you are missing part of their brain. That's all evolution and atheism is, a mental block which you choose for yourself beyond which you do not permit yourself to use your brain. Side: True.
1
point
A dead horse is on your leg, holding you where you cannot move. You could get that dead horse off of you if you would listen, but you won't believe it, you won't listen, so you will die with your horse. It's sin, you are doing it, and getting what you deserve.......sorry I can't help. If I try to get that horse off of you, you say "leave it there". Fine. I'm leaving it there. Side: True.
A dead horse is on your leg, holding you where you cannot move. You could get that dead horse off of you if you would listen, but you won't believe it, you won't listen, so you will die with your horse. It's sin, you are doing it, and getting what you deserve.......sorry I can't help. If I try to get that horse off of you, you say "leave it there". Fine. I'm leaving it there. Ohhhh, now I get it....you are eating that horse, you are beating it to tenderize it before you chew on it. I guess you decided you can die with your horse. Well, beat on it some more. There's a table spread for me which you can't touch. Side: True.
A dead horse is on your leg, holding you where you cannot move. You could get that dead horse off of you if you would listen, but you won't believe it, you won't listen, so you will die with your horse. It's sin, you are doing it, and getting what you deserve.......sorry I can't help. If I try to get that horse off of you, you say "leave it there". Fine. I'm leaving it there. Ohhhh, now I get it....you are eating that horse, you are beating it to tenderize it before you chew on it. I guess you decided you can die with your horse. Well, beat on it some more. There's a table spread for me which you can't touch with the filth of a dead horse on you. Until you admit you are dirty and need to be cleansed, you'll just have to enjoy that horse as much as you can. Yuck. Tootles. Side: True.
1
point
Just take the first one, "Distant starlight", and google something like "Does the distance of the stars prove the Big Bang?" and then look for arguments showing it does not prove the Big Bang. You'll probably find things written by PhD and/or other scientists who believe in six literal days of creation as told in the Genesis account, and 6000 yrs of Earth history from the day it was created. You might find something by a scientist who is agnostic yet open the the creation model. I have looked at both sides, yours and mine, from many different sources. You have presented nothing new. I really don't care to look over it again. You have already shown you will not be objective in how you use science, why should I beat a dead horse? You're a dead horse, and you are beating a dead horse called Evolution....and that dead horse will lead you to your grave and you will wake up in Hell if you will not repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Giddeup!!! Side: True.
1
point
I have already found them and debated them on this site (probably even with you) - and those arguments did not hold up. "Does the distance of the stars prove the Big Bang?" Sight clarification here - I am looking for age of the universe being in the billions, not specifically the big bang. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
The only thing I have conceded is that you follow a hypothesis and do not care about objective science. Because you imply I have conceded a debate with you, I have to say you are a liar which as an evolutionist is normal. Evolution is a dead horse, and you are beating it to death...your own death, and it would be dumb for me to stand around and try to get you to see that what you are doing is foolish when you won't see it for yourself. Side: True.
1
point
slight clarification....looking for something is trying to find evidence to support your hypothesis, and if you feel you must deny God rules over you, then you must only accept data which supports your hypothesis and reject or ignore data which contradicts your hypothesis. Declaring your hypothesis true when there is contradictory data is not science. Side: True.
Hi monkey. I posted a list of a dozen or two dozen facts of nature which contradict evolutionary theory, from all fields of science......after posting several individual facts. All the atheists disappeared, pretended I had posted nothing, refused to discuss the facts. Then an idiot like you says something stupid like you said here. Your Atfag the monkey, so I expect you to say and do stupid things as it is required for your show as you ride my back trying to get attention from a man who will not follow a monkey. Now try to pay attention like a man, monkey. If you want to look at the facts, you can google them as easily as I can...but you won't. Atheism is a non-thinking approach to reality. Atheistic scientists choose pseudo-science of evolution and big bang believe proclaiming their beliefs must be true therefore all observations in nature must support those beliefs or be ignored...and that is why monkeys like you are afraid to look at the facts. Side: True.
I have been following your posts. You have NEVER been able to give data that even suggests evolution didn't happen. All you have been able to do is say "where is this missing evidence eh?" "my cat didnt evolve into a dog over night so what have you got to say about that?". But hey just keep ranting and raving about your magic kingdom with your magical creature that has treated the world so badly. Shame you dont actually believe it. Being a little more God fearing might have made you a bit less of a twat. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Yes I see how that works, I know your responses and I look them up. In most cases, I have already seen your responses and tried to understand the reasoning of people who ignore true science which contradicts evolutionary belief. It works for me because my brain is not short-circuited in evolutionary belief. Side: True.
Yes I see how that works, I know your responses and I look them up. In most cases, I have already seen your responses and tried to understand the reasoning of people who ignore true science which contradicts evolutionary belief. It works for me because my brain is not short-circuited in evolutionary belief. In fact, I know some pro-evolution presuppositions which make better arguments for evolution that anything you are using.....yet the best of them are silly because they are based on unrealistic beliefs of people who think their lives are justified by dying. Side: True.
Don't listen to him then. God has been showing me a bunch of things He said over the last few months. So I like him alot. I go by what God shows me and I don't limit God by doctrines of men. It's obvious God is doing something unique in these last days. And I don't think dividing over things like light years vs 24 hour days is within biblical reasoning. It's like dividing over pretrbulation and posttribulation Somethings are just views on a shelf other things we can disagree on. The message of Christ and the Holyness of God, and our response to Him, is our faith. God is rolling out new light. It's a process, we should all be searching the Bible and connecting these things and sharing them. Now I've been looking for months. I was in Genesis 1 for weeks. There is so many jewels. But if we are closed we can be just as bad as the atheists. You can't learn anything with a closed mind, and you have to be learning. If am angel of light comes test the spirits. Just how it said to. Side: True.
The gap theory or theistic evolution are doctrines of men and were never heard of until recent history. That stuff is not in the Bible, it's contrived by people who allow peer pressure of ungodly pseudo-scientists to sway them. It's a developed doctrine of men, a few men, only recently introduced and sold publicly. It's damaging, it hinders the gospel from being spread by focusing on a doctrine of men instead of focusing on the Lord and His gospel. Side: True.
God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Part 1: Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity. Dawkins writes, "First you first have to explain the technical meaning of 'information'." While that sounds reasonable, Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology. It is common for Darwinists to define information as "Shannon information," which is related to calculating the mere unlikelihood of a sequence of events. Under their definition, a functionless stretch of genetic junk might have the same amount "information" as a fully functional gene of the same sequence-length. ID-proponents don't see this as a useful way of measuring biological information. ID-proponents define information as complex and specified information—DNA which is finely-tuned to do something. Stephen C. Meyer writes that ID-theorists use "(CSI) as a synonym for 'specified complexity' to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information—that is, specified complexity from mere complexity." As the ISCID encyclopedia explains, "Unlike specified complexity, Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance." The Inconvenient Truth for Dawkins: The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not. _ It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of "specified complexity," nor were they the first to observe that "specified complexity" is the best way to describe biological information. My first knowledge of the term being used comes from leading origin of life theorist Leslie Orgel, who used it in 1973 in a fashion that closely resembles the modern usage by ID proponents: [L]iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. (Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection," p.189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973).) Orgel thus captures the fact that specified complexity requires both order and a specific arrangement of parts or symbols. This matches the definition given by Dembski, where he defines specified complexity as an unlikely event that conforms to an independent pattern. This establishes that specified complexity is the appropriate measure of biological complexity. Additionally, Richard Dawkins' article admits that "DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome's capacity in bits too, if we wish." That's an interesting analogy, reminiscent of the design overtones of Dawkins concession elsewhere that "[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).) Of course, Dawkins believes that the processes of random mutation and unguided selection ultimately built "[t]he machine code of the genes" and made it "uncannily computer-like." But I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Copying the same argument will get the same response: "Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology." This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity. It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of "specified complexity," They didn't invent the phrase, but they did invent the meaning for it that they now use. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
2
points
having sex with what or who or where? Sex is for marriage, any other usage is perversion. So are you a pervert? the way you ask for a description of how having sex is perversion sounds like you are tying to excuse your perversion, and evolution provides that excuse by denying objective morals so you can ask the dumb question of "how is having sex perverted"? Having sex is not perverted when it is with your marriage partner, and not the perverted modern definition of marriage which is not the merging of a man and woman in a lifetime bond. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I don't care how you feel qbout sex. If two consenting people want to have safe, sane, and consensual sex, then let them- thats not for you to decide. Sex is primarily for reproduction, but it also provides for bonding between to people- gay people too, strengthening a relationship. In short, it's fun, private, and therefore harmless, so whatever your reasons are, you don't get to decide how other people have sex. Side: True.
1
point
1
point
If you live in my house, you will not be alone behind a closed door with another person barring other members of the household except that you are a man and the other person is a woman who is your lawfully wedded wife, or you are a woman and the other person is a man who is your lawfully wedded husband. I will not allow perversion in my house. Perversion will not be allowed in Heaven. If you don't respect God's law and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, that's your problem and you're not bringing it into my house. You would have been promptly expelled from my house a long time ago just for talking in favor of perversion. You probably want to remain outside of my house and stay in places you feel your perversion will not be punished. Too bad you can't keep yourself out of Hell. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I make the law in my house, and I keep it in line with the God's holy law, the ten commandments. If you live in my house, you will not be alone behind a closed door with another person barring other members of the household except that you are a man and the other person is a woman who is your lawfully wedded wife, or you are a woman and the other person is a man who is your lawfully wedded husband. I will not allow perversion in my house. Perversion will not be allowed in Heaven. If you don't respect God's law and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, that's your problem and you're not bringing it into my house. You would have been promptly expelled from my house a long time ago just for talking in favor of perversion. You probably want to remain outside of my house and stay in places you feel your perversion will not be punished. Too bad you can't keep yourself out of Hell. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I make the law in my house, and I keep it in line with the God's holy law, the ten commandments. If you live in my house, you will not be alone behind a closed door with another person barring other members of the household except that you are a man and the other person is a woman who is your lawfully wedded wife, or you are a woman and the other person is a man who is your lawfully wedded husband. I will not allow perversion in my house. Perversion will not be allowed in Heaven. If you don't respect God's law and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, that's your problem and you're not bringing it into my house. You would have been promptly expelled from my house a long time ago just for talking in favor of perversion. You probably want to remain outside of my house and stay in places you feel your perversion will not be punished. Too bad you can't keep yourself out of Hell. Anybody in my house will be safe from perverts. Perverts will be expelled. That's the law in my house. If it were the law of the land, there would be no STD's except in the vagabond population of perverts. It will probably never be the law of the land until Jesus comes back with ten thousands of His saints to rule the world in righteousness, and the kingdoms, all of them corrupt, of this world will be overthrown by Him. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Morals are the basis of deciding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. It's the same as ethics. Gay marriage is based on morals. This being said, where do you get your source that gay marriage or just having non marital sex in general is inherently wrong? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
is this what your mother taught you, and what you would teach your daughter? Being a cheap whorish person who gives themselves away like a piece of meat is good clean fun? If you or anybody who believes this way gets AIDS or any STD, you deserve it. You're a dirty pervert, and that's why people cling to atheism and evilootion, they think it excuses their perversion. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
1
point
I'm only stating the truth. Evolution is made up, and no matter how intelligent you are, if you believe it you are a sucker. Sorry. How can I say it nicely? It's dumb to believe in evolution. That's the truth, if it bothers you that's not my problem. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
There's no proof that it is true. It's all made up, contrived, twisted, and declared to be factual. It's not science, if you believe it's real you are being made a fool of....sorry, but that's the truth. People generally hate the truth, prefer to ignore and dodge the truth as they try to bury their sins behind their pride, and I don't care if I get killed (banned) for saying it. I'm going to Heaven. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You might as well be done with me....I tried to believe in evolution as it was crammed down my throat for fifty years through every available media including public schools. I knew if I believed it then I would have to believe I am of no real value, no more than a dog or a pig, I would have to believe life has no objective meaning and there is no objective morality as survival and avoiding pain would be all that really matters. I would also have to believe that love is not real, and even if it is real it would be futile as death destroys love in things which are loved when the deceased no longer give love to the living. Even as a young child I knew that whoever was asking me to hold such a cynical view of life is nobody I should trust....and I didn't trust them, I rejected their indoctrination, and believing right must be right and wrong must be wrong, and truth must be real, I set out to find it........and I found it. The Biblical world and life view is the only belief system which answers all of the problems and questions of life. Jesus Christ is the answer. The gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is God incarnate, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead to be the justifier of all who trust in Him........this is the only thing that makes sense in the world, this is the only thing that answers all of the questions of life in our condition. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
There is a middle ground. On one end there's God and eternal life. On the other end is eternal death. The middle ground I propose is that we are all eternal beings. We are all equal. There is no head honcho telling us what to do. We live our lives as we want. Our choices have consequences. And that's what we use to guide our lives. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
There is already enslavement, and also a choice of freedom. In this world we are already slaves. Jesus came to set us free. We are enslaved under the claim of the Devil. The weight of our sin is crushing us. The stone is falling on us. So you either fall onto the stone, and are broken, and set free, released from to judgement for all under the law or He falls on you, and you are crushed. It goes back to the prophesy at the fall of man. When God said to the serpent He would put enmity between the serpent's seed, and the woman's Seed, and He will wound the serpents head and he will strike His heal." Which actually makes sense since he was a star that imploded, because it was mixed in the dust from the ground, that could be how God gave us free will. Jesus walked in our shoes, and overcame living a life above the law in a body our body made of dust, placed on those from dust on the grounds claim. His death nailed the curse under the law, against dust and flesh. And He freed us from the dust under the belly of the snake. We need to take His way, pick up our crosses and follow through the one and only door. He released us from the dust back to dust and the grave, it was by it's dust that we were enslaved. . He opened up the way for us to escape the curse from under the law. cursed is destroyed under the law. And the accuser is our prosecutor slithering over the ground and the dust. His appetite doesn't cease he is cursed eat dust all of his days. Only one way through the cross. The earth quaked and the veil was torn. He struck a blow down wounding the serpent on his head. This was the did it the only way He could to redeem man. He paid our ransom, and judgement, the sentence as well. The accuser of the brethern accuses us day and night. But we are made innocent and released from the dust under the belly of the serpent, God has to hold to His Law. We were ransomed from sin and death, and if we don't take His Way out to freedom the world is decending into the depth of the pit, the only way out is through Jesus, His cross where we are changed a payment blood for blood life for life, the payment of the law which is the weight of the earth Born Again saving His children from the harsh judgement under the weight And the serpent struck His heal. And he set free the work of flesh curruption being driven to death by a world dictator, who has a fierce appetite for flesh, as he was cursed to eat dust all his days! What you don't realize is the control over us by the ruler of this world. We are mere puppets. Whether they scream moral restraint or they are tools of moral depravity, they are tools. Controlled by their passions and lead by their nose. They took control of man, everything that was wrong for man they orchestrated it with cunning manipilulation. God didn't create this mess, it's been controlled. God knew all, and His prophesies He put in drove history to His final end. But where Satan destroys us like leftover fries, Jesus came to give us hope, in a place where there is no hope. A way to climb out of the gravitational pull, in the blackhole below us, that's name is Sheol. Side: True.
It goes back to the curse on the serpent, and on dust which man was made from. Jesus walked in our flesh, and overcame living a life above the law in a body made of dust, with a curse of law placed on those from dust on the grounds claim. His death nailed the curse under the law, against dust and flesh. And He freed us from the dust under the belly of the snake. He walked in it, mastered it, then He nailed it to a tree, and rose up in it, breaking the gravitational pull of sin and darkness, which you can visibly today. It has grown where it is pulling people down to depravity, to an unreasoning mind like animals, marked in the image of the beast. We need to take the one way, thats to go through the door of the cross. Pick up our Crosses and follow through this One and Only Door. It's repenting and deciding He is going to be God of your life. He released us from the dust, and the grave, it was by it's dust we were enslaved. . He opened up the way for us to escape the curse from under the law, and from under Satan's belly all are cursed and destroyed under the law. And the accuser is our prosecutor slithering over the dust in the ground. His appetite doesn't cease he is cursed eat dust all of his days. The one only way is through the cross. The earth quaked and the veil was torn. When He died on the cross He struck a blow down against the ground and wounding the serpent on his head. This is the reason why Jesus is the Only way. When we say He died to save us, He did it the only way He could for our redemption. He paid our ransom, and our judgement. He fullfilled our sentence as well. The accuser of the brethern accuses us day and night. But we are made innocent and released from the dust under the belly of the serpent, God has to hold to His own Law.. Side: True.
Fossils are not a record of evolution. Fossils are fossils. Why are you not done with me? Who are you trying to convince that evolution is real when it's a fairy tale, a magician without a magic wand, and the moral of the story is that death gets you out of reality so it's good....that's evil, friend, evolution is an evil belief system designed to destroy people. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Show me evolution happening and I will believe it is happening. You believe it is happening but all you can show is variations, mutations, and adaptations of species and you call it evolution expecting me to believe it proves monkeys are evolving into a new species of people after a few million more years....or maybe they are morphing...ooops, gradually changing over millions of years....into extraterrestrial aliens who will seed life on mars. The fact that you cannot show evolution happening is all the proof needed to reject it scientifically. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
Suprise! variation, mutation, and adaption are all forms of evolution! Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. And yes, it does show speciation. As differences accumulate between populations due to prezygotic barriers, reproductive isolation can eventually occur and new species are formed. So there's your proof. Side: True.
hahahhahah.......yeah, right. Ok, bring me a lizard and you and I will read the Bible together until the lizard turns into a bird. Evolution is one kind of animal morphing into another kind of animal, you cannot see it happening, you never saw it happen, and never will see it happen because it's not happening, never did, and never will. Change in allele frequencies is change in allele frequencies. That is observable science, repeatable....so you can see it, then show it to me and I can see it and we can study it in depth. To believe it proves reptiles morphed into birds is to believe Bugs Bunny weally was a weal live wabbit who spoke English. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Reptiles didn't suddenly morph into birds- there was a gradual transition, dinosaurs being the best example, who were reptiles with (most likely) feathers and had some species, such as those in Pterosauria who could fly- so the transition is shown. A modern day lizard will never turn into a modern day bird because divergence has already happened. Furthermore, individuals cannot evolve, populations do. So, given enough generations and some evolutionary pressure, the lizard would eventually change into a different species. The relationship of changing allele frequencies is what explains this- as allele frequencies change when two populations are separated, they accumulate differences and diverge. Side: True.
who said reptiles suddenly morphed into birds, and when you compare a few millions years with billions and billions of years before and after the big bang which poofed in your brain to make you think you are smarter than God, a few million years by comparison to eternity is in reality only a few moments. I said reptiles did not morph into birds over any amount of time, they did not morph into birds gradually over umpteen kazillion years, millions of years, or in sudden spurts spaced out over baquillions dillion years. Why is it so difficult for you to understand simple logic? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I think you are smoking too much weed and watching too much TV I don't watch TV and I don't smoke weed. You have a bad habit of posting where a person can not respond. I expect it is a reflection of your insecurities and lack of control in other areas of life. this behavior isn't just pathetic, it's annoying. You aren't responding to anything new, so cut it out. Side: True.
Your slanders of my character here would maybe get you banned if this were my discussion. I ban people for bad manners. Are you another cry baby who comes to my discussions posting insults like you did here, and then when I ban you and take pleasure in the freedom of making you look stupid, you go off whining like a cry baby because I won't let you bully me around? Go have mommy change your diapers. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I don't think slander means what you think it means. People complain about your banning prior to replying because it is so unapologetically cowardly. Internet tough guys are pathetic enough, but when a person is an Internet tough guy to someone who can't even respond, the weakness of character on display becomes outrageous. Only a person of exceedingly low confidence and mediocre intelligence could think that banning someone is a strong move in a debate. Only a person of low moral character would find it appropriate to ban for the specific purpose of going on the offensive against the newly defenseless. Side: True.
Cry me a river. If people want to debate with me, they need to stick to the subject material and refrain from profanities and respond to what I say as if they are reading it. You're an arrogant punk, you can't win a debate with me so you resort to strings of insults and you think I should tolerate donkeys like you in my discussions? I wish you were in my house right now and you would see who is an internet tough guy......jerk Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
"Your slanders of my character here would maybe get you banned if this were my discussion. I ban people for bad manners. Are you another cry baby who comes to my discussions posting insults like you did here, and then when I ban you and take pleasure in the freedom of making you look stupid, you go off whining like a cry baby because I won't let you bully me around? Go have mommy change your diapers." Pure hipocrisy right here. Calling people suckers/stupid, then complains about being insulted. Side: True.
I wasn't talking to you here, you butted in with your rude arrogance, I think you should just not post at all in my debates and discussions and then you won't have anything to whine about when you say something rude and slanderous or profane and get yourself banned and can't reply to my posts which make you look dumb. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
The bacteria adapted to live in a hostile environment. That is pure unadulterated observable science. When you start saying over kazillioins of years they morphed into all kind of multi-celled organisms, that's a religious belief which won't get you out of reality, won't get you out of death, won't get you out of paying for your sins. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Flora remain flora, bacteria remain bacteria, viruses remain viruses. Nothing you can show as visible and tangible is evolution. If you believe bacteria managing to survive gradually increasing levels of toxin is proof that bacteria morphed into beetles over billions of years, that is not tangible, it is not visible, it's in your mind as part of the wall you hope will keep you safe from answering to God for your sins. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
out of all man's intelligence / ingenuity / inventionism from ages past to ages present and future ... has man EVER been able to invent a machine so complex that that machine has the ability to repair and duplicate itself .... YET . EVERY living cell on our planet has that ability ..... to WHOM do you attribute this intelligence to ?? .... Side: True.
3
points
1
point
We created self replicating programs. However, even though we created the program, it's the program itself that replicates itself and can simulate evolution. Saying that we created those programs though intelligent design os basically saying that God created evolution though intellegent design. Side: True.
Evolution only happens maybe in a computer program which is no different than showing it in a cartoon animation. Even to show such a program or cartoon, it requires intelligent design. The only thing you are proving is that intelligent design is evident in creation. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Evolution only happens maybe in a computer program which is no different than showing it in a cartoon animation. It cannot be shown in nature, you can only believe it happens and create cartoons or computer programs to simulate your beliefs. Big deal, you program a computer to make it say what you want it to say. That is not evolution. Even to show such a program or cartoon, it requires intelligent design. The only thing you are proving is that intelligent design is evident in creation. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Usually I don't read your posts any more, but I read this one and the request does not make sense. I do not believe in magic or magical creatures. If somebody told you magical creatures created a garden, they were lying to you and I don't know why you feel you need to ask me to explain their lies. Just tell them you do not believe in magic or magical creatures. If somebody told you a human made another human from it's rib, you might want to ask them which rib before you tell them it's silly to think a human can make another human from it's rib. Ok, well I guess I managed to make some sense of your request. Why you could not answer it yourself...well, I guess we can blame your monkey brain for that. Monkeys are not too bright. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Evolution is simulated through a computer program, but the computer program is created by intelligent design. However, the actual process of adaptation and evolution that occurs is a pattern that results due to the program. The organisms in the simulation evolve because the ones with the highest evolutionary fitness are chosen to reproduce. It's not just a cartoon, it's a simulation. The only intelligent design is the creation of the program. You're saying that it's making a computer say what you want it to say, which is not true. That would be modifying the results of the program, which is not done. If you had a program to make a ball to fall down a ramp, it's like saying you designed it to end at the bottom. The only things programmed were the ball, the ramp, and gravity- it's the process of gravity that results in the ball being at the bottom of the ramp. Evolution is the same. We start with organisms, evolutionary pressure, genetic diversity, and then boom- evolution happens within the program, just like it does within real life. It has nothing to do with intelligent design. If the same starting factors could have arisen in nature, then it doesn't imply intelligent design. I should also note that you mock so much the idea that humans suddenly poofed from monkeys (which is incorrect, we descended from great apes), yet you believe that humans appeared... out of thin air? Life arose in an environment where many biological molecules and energy existed. It may be difficult to believe, but it's a lot better proposal than some great invisible force creating non-life from nothing. Side: True.
Evolution is not simulated, your beliefs are simulated. You program a computer to simulate your beliefs, then say "see, it really happened!" That's not science. Comparing evolution to a ball on a ramp is silly. Humans appeared out of thin air? That would be evolution's hypothesis, life emerging from non-living matter. It is not difficult to believe life emerged out of non-living matter, it would be silly to believe such nonsense. Life comes from life, the Living God created living things, life comes from God. To believe mindless and lifeless matter can produce life is nonsense. It is not only much easier to believe that the Living God created living things, it is logical that since there are living things, it shows the God lives. The only reason you think it's better to believe inanimate and mindless matter has the power of God to create life is that you think your moral failures a meaningless if you can convince yourself that life is blind chance and mindlessness does not care about your moral failures. Because you know you are guilty, you want a reality in which you believe nothing good is from God and death relieves you or responsibility and suffering. Your hoping in nothing, your belief system is nonsense, and because you cling to it your character is questionable...you discredit yourself. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Let's clear one thing up. Evolution is not a "belief", it's regarded as a theory, whether or not you buy into it. Evolution can be simulated and it also happens in real life. The simulation acts as a good explanation and demonstration for evolution- it does nothing to reduce the credibility of my argument. I'm trying to say that the simulation of evolution reinforces the idea that it exists. For the last time, you know evolution does not say that humans appeared from thin air- we're the result of 3.6 billion years of evolution- biological molecules to RNA world to multicellular organisms to tetrapods and vertebraes and land animals and mammals and primates and apes and with enough cranial development due to cooked food, finally Homo sapiens. You know what I'm saying. Stop denying it and using baseless assumptions. Look, I know you're denying evolution because it implies nihilism, but what's so wrong with nihilism? Life doesn't have to have a meaning- life it whatever you make it to be. If you want to believe that there's an afterlife, whatever- but don't try to convince others that that afterlife exists when you have no proof besides "faith", which in my opinion is belief with a lack of evidence, yet you stare into the face of scientific fact. Let's assume for a moment that God exists. How did he create life? Did he create RNA world billions of years ago? Did humans, animals, and the Earth suddenly arise not but 10,000 years ago? It seems nonsensical that no matter the method, some being would be able to make life magically appear. If there was an omniscient and omnipotent being, why would he create life? Desire comes from needs or wants- an omniscient and omnipotent would neither need nor want anything. Side: True.
The only reason you would buy into evolution is because you want to believe in it. It is a hypothesis, fraudulently called a theory. One year or over 3.282 quatrizzion year, you believe non-living matter somehow came to life and people poofed out of it, you ascribe the God-like quality of being the life giver to non-living and mindless matter making matter equal to God and supernatural. God created life by His wisdom. Intelligence does not come from mindless matter. God created being with varying degrees of intelligence, and He created us with intelligence like His for Him to enjoy giving us life and having us with Him. By going against Him, you deprive your creator of the pleasure he deserves. He did not give you life so that He would have somebody to argue with, He created you for Himself to enjoy and how can you blame Him for leaving you in Hell if you will not give Him the honor He is due? God created the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six literal days. You insult God by implying he is "magical", then you ascribe magical powers to lifeless and mindless matter so you call it the god of living things, you imply non-living and mindless matter is supernatural as it with no mind, no purpose, no life, causes life to arise from itself. That's nonsense, it's goofy, and you have to be gullible to believe it. It takes much more faith to believe life emerged out of non-life and intelligence emerged from mindless matter....a completely irrational belief.....that to believe life shows the living God who gives life, and consciousness and intelligence shows God gives consciousness and intelligence. I'm not denying evolution. There is no such thing as evolution. I'm simply stating facts. You are in denial of reality living in a la-la land where life emerges from non-living matter and intelligence comes from mindless material Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You can't go and say that Evolution is a hypothesis. It's a theory, there's no denying that. As for believing life came from non-life, yes. But intelligence didn't arise suddenly, it took many generations of development of the brain to achieve the level of intelligence we posses. There's lots of evolutionary links between the fossil record with respect to the development of the brain. God is very much so "magical". Magic is essentially anything that cannot be explained by science. You keep claiming that believing life arising from non-life is dumb after I keep explaining the method for how it might have happened, yet you ignore it. Side: True.
the simulation of Bugs Bunny in cartoons reinforces the idea that he is a wascaly wabbit. Evolution is a baseless assumption in which you believe people poofed into existence out of non-living matter, of course the part that caused people to poof out of it, in one day of ten kabrillion generaitons of amoeba, whatever THE PART OF MATTER FROM WHICH LIFE EMERGED WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SUPERNATURAL AS LIFE DOES NOT EMERGE OUT OF NON-LIVING NATURAL MATERIAL.......so you imply matter has the power of God to give life.... people poofed with no cause or purpose or meaning in evlutionary belief because whatever the supernatural thing was which caused life to begin, in evolutionary belief it had to be mindless.......the reason for that is because you want the record of your sins to be removed from you in death....the problem is you don't get out of dying in Hell forever any more than you get out of dying now. That' means you believe you are worth nothing because you came from nothing, so nothing is all that you are. Believe that if you want to ...I'm not that gullible. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You cannot show evolution except by cartoon animation, and a computer simulation is no better than a cartoon animation. If you want to believe in it, you can believe in it all the way to Hell, God gives you the freedom to suit yourself as you are doing..suiting yourself with flames. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
A computer simulation is radically different from a cartoon animation, you understand that, right? An animation is drawn, while a simulation is a computer program that simulates something based on initial conditions. The simulation is not the only evidence of evolution, it's among the plethora of over evidence Somehow you admit speciation and adaptation, yet you deny evolution for some reason? Why can you understand that species change over time, yet they don't change a lot over a lot of time? Side: True.
Evolution does not happen. A computerized fabrication supposedly showing how evolution happens is not evolution, it's no better than a cartoon animation. Computers do what they are programmed to do. If you program a computer to morph amoeba into man, it will do it, and if it shows the pictures of the transformation it will look like a cartoon animation. That's not science, it's child's play. Side: True.
1
point
Are you ready to yet admit that you're in blatant denial of all that I've said? Look, I know that you're not ready to accept evolution because, well, I don't think you can handle it. You're afraid of what a lack of an intelligent designer might mean. You're afraid that life is going to end and you're just be rotting in the ground, so you search for some meaning in life, some reassurance that it won't just end. That's where the idea of heaven comes from- people desperately want to believe that there is an eternal good, so they do. Nihilism, which is the belief that life is meaningless, is hard to accept, but it might be what I currently believe in. We can't prove or refute the existence of an afterlife- so why bother? We get to enjoy the nature of life, so let's just enjoy it, and if there's an afterlife, so be it, lucky us. If not, so what? We have to accept that and embrace it. I don't know why, but the typical Christian rhetoric likes to use fear-mongering and brainwashing by saying that we all have a choice between eternal suffering and eternal peace, and the only way to achieve eternal piece is to agree with them and join their faith- just like many other religions do. Most say that you'll be punished if you don't accept their way of thinking, the one true way of thinking, so which one do you believe? There's no winning. You don't have to be in constant denial and fear that rejecting the Christian way of faith will give you eternal suffering. If God's way of thinking is "join me and have peace, or have eternal pain for questioning me", then that's not justice at all. That's blatant brainwashing and is nothing more than a threat- why is it such a crime to question the nature of said God and what he does? Wouldn't a just God encourage open discussion and debate, the spreading of information and the instillment of cooperation, not the "my way or the highway" philosophy as seen in extremists and monarchs? All in all, said God wants us to use "faith", believing in him without the use of evidence- that goes against all critical thinking. Should people be punished because they don't believe in something that there's a lack of evidence for, instead deciding to say that another way of thinking that has more supporting evidence is likely more correct? Side: True.
I m ready to admit you believe in nonsense. Living things come from living things, they do not emerge from non-living things. Consciousness is given by God, it does not emerge out of mindless matter. If you believe life emerged out of non-living matter, then you are gullible, believing something never observed in nature. And why do you believe it? simple...you hate God and want to justify yourself because you love your sin more than life. Side: True.
3
points
The basis of "life" is considered an emergent property, and originated with cells. Living things do very much so come from non-living things- we are all made of non-living things- atoms arranged in such a way that we are alive. In a different order, they are not alive, but with the order we're in, they are. If this is true, why wouldn't it be true that given enough time it could occur in an environment with lots of energy, time, and the same organic molecules? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Intelligence of God is the 90% that the natural man can't understand. The wisdom of fools use less than 10%, this is the maximum found in wisdom of the world. The advancements they made, some were crafts taught by fallen angels. But the ability and intelligence came from God, Satan currupted knowledge, making it more evil than good. Side: True.
Scripture Evolution - many prophesies formed together to make entire threads of history, with parts of scripture building like chain linked cells, falling in place like dominoes! Which is greater, mutating viruses, even building a human, or designing history by controlling every player, nations, atheist nations, hostile nations, all nations, presidents, regimes, and the people of the nations? The bible uses phrases like this often. “At the appointed time” God even says that things in His Word are not revealed until “the appointed time” All prophesy will be 100% fulfilled and there are 2000 that have been fulfilled and there are 500 that are either in process, or are set up to occur. So there is every indication we will see it. Many Bible Prophesies needed to be field in a specific order, for others to be fulfilled. Example: 1 -To scatter Israel, the Jews, to all the nations, and then 2 - Bring the Jews back from all the nations they were scattered into. First He had to scatter them, which is also detailed several prophesies. Then bringing them back was fullfilled after WW2. Thousands of years are between these prophesies. Now that could be a coincidence, but then you have this one, which as a nation is a source of "trembling," maybe “terrorism?” How did these ancient guys, say these things, and it be ridiculously unreasonably true? They are a spot on the map, and I can even say the Muslims around it are bickering over a piece of land. But the scripture is plain as 2 + 2= 4 It has details that are specific, and honestly the outcomes are illogical. It's not logical to prophesy this about a country that was without a Nation for well over 1000 years, to then go from that to an established nation, surrounded like this, and remain standing, with every nation looking at it to determine world peace, the whole world's peace! BIBLE PROPHESY Zech 12 (KJV) 1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Does it even make sense that Israel stands in the midst of this bizarre dynamics? How would this small nation exist if there is not a God defending it? Some history is so illogical, and we find it prophesied in advance, how? The answer, God is greater than nations, and they can't keep themselves from fulfilling His Word, no matter how hard they try! Zech 14 (KJV) 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. Side: True.
Scripture Evolution - many prophesies formed together to make entire threads of history, with parts of scripture building like chain linked cells, falling in place like dominoes! Which is greater, mutating viruses, even building a human, or designing history by controlling every player, nations, atheist nations, hostile nations, all nations, presidents, regimes, and the people of the nations? The bible uses phrases like this often. “At the appointed time” God even says that things in His Word are not revealed until “the appointed time” All prophesy will be 100% fulfilled and there are 2000 that have been fulfilled and there are 500 that are either in process, or are set up to occur. So there is every indication we will see it. Many Bible Prophesies needed to be field in a specific order, for others to be fulfilled. Example: 1 -To scatter Israel, the Jews, to all the nations, and then 2 - Bring the Jews back from all the nations they were scattered into. First He had to scatter them, which is also detailed several prophesies. Then bringing them back was fullfilled after WW2. Thousands of years are between these prophesies. Now that could be a coincidence, but then you have this one, which as a nation is a source of "trembling," maybe “terrorism?” How did these ancient guys, say these things, and it be ridiculously unreasonably true? They are a spot on the map, and I can even say the Muslims around it are bickering over a piece of land. But the scripture is plain as 2 + 2= 4 It has details that are specific, and honestly the outcomes are illogical. It's not logical to prophesy this about a country that was without a Nation for well over 1000 years, to then go from that to an established nation, surrounded like this, and remain standing, with every nation looking at it to determine world peace, the whole world's peace! BIBLE PROPHESY Zech 12 (KJV) 1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Does it even make sense that Israel stands in the midst of this bizarre dynamics? How would this small nation exist if there is not a God defending it? Some history is so illogical, and we find it prophesied in advance, how? The answer, God is greater than nations, and they can't keep themselves from fulfilling His Word, no matter how hard they try! Zech 14 (KJV) 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. Side: True.
We see evolution in front of us. Total depravity, the final stage of evolution. You all win, whatever prize is set for your species, kind, family, viruses, or whatever you want to call it. Look around you! You think you evolved to greatness? You got to be as bright as a wet pack of matches! Side: True.
|
2
points
hahahhaha Can you show this happening in a cartoon animation? Where did the bacteria come from? I know you said before that you know they came from molecules which somehow came to life. You believe that, it's a hypothesis which cannot be shown scientifically, and you believe it because you are gullible and do not want to believe God is the King of all Creation. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Started with biological molecules with lots of energy to create RNA world, which was a ribozyme, useful for catalysation. Given natural selection, the most efficient reproductions were chosen until protobionts, enclosed by a bi layer lipid membrane, formed. Endosymbiosis allowed for much more efficient energy transfer, resulting in the first eukaryotic cells, and eventually everything after. Eubacteria (along with Archeabacteria) prokaryotic, so they instead have a nucleoid region and some free-floating ribosomes. They evolved earlier. Side: True.
3
points
It's all theory. However, there's plenty of evidence for about everything endosymbiosis and beyond. We can infer that endosymbiosis occurred due to how mitochondria and chloroplasts reproduce separately, have double membranes, and have their own mitochondrial (or plastid) DNA. Before endosymbiosis, we can provide some evidence. Protobionts are thought to have a bilayer lipid membrane (naturally forming in water due to hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails) like all life, with RNA world and it's storage and self-replication in the center it would act as the precursor to all life. Side: True.
1
point
Bio 101 brainwashing, programming........you admit the primary purpose or your "biology" is to go against God, not to study biology. That is not science, it's propaganda designed to make a piece of meat out of you. Meat is for frying and you have sucked up a full load in your gullibility. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
You have nothing to refute, all you have is death and you are trying to make excuses for your sin believing you are keeping yourself out of Hell. You want it, you got it. You want a reality void of anything good from God, you have Hell to pay and you are condemned to it by your own choice. You are asking for it and you can't blame God for giving you the reality you want void of His goodness....you want it now and the only place you can really have it is in Hell where fire deprives you of anything good. Go have a nice fresh cool glass of water and enjoy it while you can.....and don't thank God for it, be sure to tell God He is not good to you and enjoy your water....no water in Hell Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
It's all hypothesis. A theory can be tested under laboratory conditions, shown to others as true by factual and repeatable testing. The theory of bacteria adapting to toxic substances is observable and repeatable science. When you add to that scientific understanding the hypothesis of "given billions of years, the bacteria through polymorphic mutations and natural selection or survival of the fittest will probably change into multi-celled animals, and that would explain why we have so many kinds of beetles".........as long as you go on trying to prove that hypothesis, you are only trying to prove a hypothesis rather than objectively studying matter or living things........just wasting time on a good for nothing idea called evolution...good for nothing but pumping up your head to think you are smarter than God and can't end up in Hell and there is nothing good in that. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
The things I'm saying aren't really observable- it's inference and inductive reasoning. Evolution, as a change in allele frequencies, however, is very much so. I think one misconception here is that you're confusing the theory of a universal common ancestor with evolution. One says all life originated from one or more organisms, while the other just says that there is a change in allele frequencies over time within a population. Now that I've hit you with fact over fact and explanation regarding these hypothesis or theories, whatever you wish to call them, can I hear some support for your hypothesis of an intelligent designer? Side: True.
Your phony "deductive reasoning" starts with the end of reasoning which is not reached by progression of logic. You start with "this must be true", then everything you believe must conform to your starting conclusion. It's the end of reasoning. I do not present any hypothesis of an intelligent designer, His design shows His handiwork and you have to be willfully ignorant to deny it. True science does not present hypothesis, people with ideas present hypothesis. True science observes what is there. Things that cannot be observed cannot be studied scientifically. You want support for the fact that you are created by God? Go look in the mirror. That's you that you see in the mirror, looking out through your eyeballs, that's you inside there. It's not an unreal holographic simulation of consciousness caused by chemical fizzes. It's you. You are not your body, you are in your body and you did not get in there through evolution. Life comes from the Living God, that is logical. To say life emerges out of non-living matter is not logical. The truth is simple. You have a history and it's not in fossils, it's recorded now covering every moment of your time, every word you have ever spoken, every thought and imagination, everything you have ever done anywhere and everywhere you went. It's you, it's your history, and you can't get out of it. You owe God for every moment of your time, and your sins have separated you from Him so you are not worthy to be in His presence. Demanding proof that Hell is real and sinners will be confined there forever will get you nothing but the proof you do not want. You can be saved from Hell, God Himself died for you as God the Man Christ Jesus, paid your prices so you can be relieved of the debt you owe God for your time, you can be pardoned and set free from the curse of sin and death by the One who conquered death and is the King of Creation, coming back to rule the world. He will be your Savior and your sins will be covered by His blood or you will stand before Him in Judgement with His blood trampled under your feet after He died for you and you hated Him with no remorse. If you will not believe, it's only because you hate God and you love death and you are getting it as you want it, eternity void of any sign of God's goodness like fresh air, sunshine, and water......in the fire of Hell where there is nothing good from God and sinners get what they want, reality void of anything good from God. God is being good to you now, and you are spitting in His face. Somebody is making a fool out of you, and you are cooperating with them to your own destruction. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
I agree with you in the fullest that consciousness and our perception are some "divine gift" or whatever you want to call it. Life can arise naturally, but consciousness and our perception of reality is an interesting emergence within us. I'm not sure how we got it, but the truth remains. Consciousness aside, evolution is very much a thing, and abiogenesis could very possibly be very much a thing. Even if you deny that it's very possible that basic life could have arisen with the right conditions, you could at least accept that maybe God planted RNA world or the first organism on Earth, and then we came from there. Even then, it's highly illogical for that to happen. By what method would creation be done? Would it follow the laws of physics? And so on. If our universe currently follows natural laws, then by uniformitarianism, those laws should persist throughout time. "Things that cannot be observed cannot be studied scientifically." While we can't make baseless assumptions without observation, we can take what is observed and then draw inferences from it. That doesn't mean that those inferences are correct, but we can use parsimony to figure out the "most correct" hypothesis. In the case of RNA world, it's the hypothesis that makes the most sense given the observations we have made about our current life. "You owe God for every moment of your time, and your sins have separated you from Him so you are not worthy to be in His presence. Demanding proof that Hell is real and sinners will be confined there forever will get you nothing but the proof you do not want. You can be saved from Hell, God Himself died for you as God the Man Christ Jesus, paid your prices so you can be relieved of the debt you owe God for your time, you can be pardoned and set free from the curse of sin and death by the One who conquered death and is the King of Creation, coming back to rule the world. He will be your Savior and your sins will be covered by His blood or you will stand before Him in Judgement with His blood trampled under your feet after He died for you and you hated Him with no remorse." I don't think that I hate God, as I don't think he exists. As you said, observations must be made for scientific study to occur. In this case, I haven't made any observations about either hell or God from which I could draw an inference that a Christian god exists. I do think that consciousness is a sign of an ultimate source or being, I don't think it means anything for proof of a Christian god that rules in heaven, nor does it provide evidence for hell. "If you will not believe, it's only because you hate God and you love death and you are getting it as you want it, eternity void of any sign of God's goodness like fresh air, sunshine, and water......in the fire of Hell where there is nothing good from God and sinners get what they want, reality void of anything good from God." I don't believe because I don't have a reason to. No one's given me any observable evidence that god exists, only stories and faith, so why should I believe in it? I also don't believe that aliens created humans because I don't have any evidence either. While it's possible either of these might be true, I believe in abiogenesis because it makes the most sense to me. Why should I be punished by god because there's more evidence that he didn't create the universe? If god wanted be to believe, then why would he try so hard to make it seem like he doesn't exist? "God is being good to you now, and you are spitting in His face. Somebody is making a fool out of you, and you are cooperating with them to your own destruction." God is being good to me how? I haven't seen any examples of divine intervention in my life so far. Furthermore, I mean no harm against the god I think exists. How is questioning him equate to spitting in his face? If you think that wondering why a Christian god would want us to serve him is a crime, then you're the one who wants people to have their lives controlled. Side: True.
You are trashing God in every way imaginable, and you want me to believe you mean Him no harm? You want Him dead. Its' you who is dead, a dead man walking on death row in condemnation and you need to be saved or you will end up in Hell and God who you denied will forever deny you any reprieve as He provided full payment for you with His own life's blood which would cover your sins but you prefer to trample His blood under your feet. You are spitting in His face and He is allowing you time outside of Hell and you do not thank Him for the air you breath or the water you drink so you are going to lose it if you will not repent of your sins, your pride, your way against God. As you stand in your pride, you are falling down and Hell is ready for you. Enjoy evolving all you can before you wake up in the fire. Sorry I can't help you see. You won't see for yourself until you are in the fire I guess. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So don't believe that God loves you so much He died for you to save you from Hell. Don't believe it. Enjoy your sin all you can. Do whatever you feel like doing as long as you can do it. Do not concern yourself with God's law. Whatever you have the urge to do, why not just do it instead of thinking about it? God can't tell you what to do or not to do. Enjoy your sin while you can if that's what you want to to, and obviously you walk according to your own lusts so do it. Don't repent of your sin, and don't believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. You might as well join Islam. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
There is no evolution without abiogenesis. The only person trying to confuse things is you, because you hope to get out of your personal record......so you love death thinking it is your friend which will relieve your suffering and you hate God who you know will leave you in Hell for going against Him. Hit me with fact over fact..........hahahhaha........telling me you believe in evolution is not hitting me with any fact except for the fact that you believe in evolution and the only thing proven by that fact is that you are gullible. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Evolution, which is the theory that allele frequencies change over time, can very much exists without abiogenesis- there are many Christians who believe in it, such as you. You think that me arguing in abiogenesis excludes morality? Nope. I fully accept that things I've done are my fault- unless there's an omniscient being, ironically. "If God knows what I will do tomorrow, then I have no choice but to do that thing. If I do not, then God was wrong and he is not omniscient. If I do, then his knowledge means I do not have the freedom to do otherwise." This passage summarizes the free-will omniscience paradox, which essentially means that either only a.) we have free will, or only b.) there is an omniscient creator is true- the two cannot coexist. "Hit me with fact over fact..........hahahhaha........telling me you believe in evolution is not hitting me with any fact except for the fact that you believe in evolution and the only thing proven by that fact is that you are gullible." Me telling you I believe in evolution is not hitting you with a fact, correct. Me explaining the best current hypothesis of abiogenesis with detailed explanations based on observations is, however. Side: True.
Evolution excuses immorality as it recognizes no objective morals. There are no Christians such as me who believe in any kind of evolution. That belief is a dividing line and I have to doubt the reality of people who believe in any form of evolution being Christians. They will say they are, they can talk it pretty good....but it's hard for me to believe a person is saved when they go against God's word. Your "free will/omniscience" paradox being used as an excuse for your sin, an attempt to blame God for your condemnation in eternal dying, eternal damnation, is a logical fallacy. The fact that God knows what you will choose does not excuse you for choosing evil. You choose your way, and it's end is death, and you have no excuse to keep you out of Hell. Blaming God won't help. I can explain your beliefs better than you can because you don't know what you are doing. You don't realize that you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell. You think evolution justifies your life, and dying excuses your sin. You are going against your own life in favor of your death and you are stuck in it with no way out since you reject the Savior who can and will get you out if you will trust Him....but you trust in evolution to get you out of reality. Your stuck with your history, and you're not getting out. It's funny how people like you think you are smarter than God by insisting that if God is omniscient, He cannot allow you to do stupid things like cursing Him to death and plunging yourself into Hell. Just because God is omniscient, that does not mean you cannot be stupid. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
detailed explanations based on observations???!?!?! hahahahah How many new life forms have been observed emerging from non-living matter? I think your understanding of the word "observation" is confused with "imagination". You might want to consult your dictionary before you say stupid things implying you have observed abiogenesis. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
"hypothesis of abiogenesis with detailed explanations based on observations is" at least you admit that you start with a conclusion and make detailed explanations to support your conclusion...in other words, you look at things based on your beliefs force your observations to support your beliefs. Evolution is a waste of time. How many hundred times do you think I have seen people like you parroting this nonsense, parading themselves like they are intelligent and slapping each other on the back? It's a joke, you make a tragic comedy of yourself, thinking you are smarter and stronger than God. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
0
points
As said, the conclusion is based on evidence that we have found via fossil record, carbon dating, so on. You are the one who was taught to believe that God created the universe, so you try to deny everything else vecause you think you are serving some God. Don't you understand? Christianity has made you into a pawn, a person who cannot do anything to cross Supreme Leader out of fear of burning in hell. If any other being proposed eternal suffering for refusing to submit, he would be called a dictator and sociopath. You're being used and you relish every moment of it because you get satisfaction from serving Supreme Leader. You claim I was the one being brainwashed- but I was given a choice. Christianity says you have no choice. Side: True.
The conclusion dictates how you interpret data. Piles of bones are piles of bones, carbon dating gives vastly varying readings and the unwanted ones are discarded. Don't I understand??? Hahahah. Please. Poople like you tried to shove evolution down my throat for fifty years.....almost as far back as I can remember. Why? Why is it so important to you that I believe in evolution? I don't trust anybody who tries to tell me my life has no objective value. There is no explanation for reality other than that God makes it real. You can't figure it out, or better, you knew it at one point but chose to deny God as you do not want Him telling you what you should or should not do. You want to do it all your own way, and the end of that way is death. Death is all you have, and you ride your dead horse called "evolution" into the grave, and if you keep insisting God is not good then you get the reality you want now, void of God's goodness, in the fire of Hell and you can't blame God for giving you what you want, a reality void of anything good from God. You are trying to replace God with nature, and failing in death. I'm being used........hahahhahha........that's good if God can use me, and I know He will because He has a purpose for me. Evolution has no purpose for you, and your purpose with evolution is what? What is it? What are you doing? You're committing a slow suicide. You're going to end up in Hell because you are opposed to your Creator and rejecting His offer of pardon through the blood He paid for you to cover your sins. You want to pay for yourself, you want to go your own way, who is stopping you? Who is forcing you to do anything? Only your sin controls you, and it's taking you to Hell since you reject the One who died for your sins and rose from the dead to justify all who believe on Him. Your mind is darkened, you have set up a wall using evolution as mortar, trying to hide yourself away from God, trying to keep your sins hidden, in the dark, to bury them in your own tomb. You can't escape, evolution offers you a false hope of getting out of reality and being freed from your recorded history......and be sure God has every moment of your time on record and you owe Him for it, Justice will be served and you will face Jesus Christ the Living God as your Judge if you will not receive Him as your Savior. The simple truth of the matter is you scorn God's offer of salvation because you walk according to your own lusts. Enjoy while you can. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Who says you have no choice? You choose to believe God is not good. That is your choice. Trample the blood of Christ under your feet, insist God did nothing for you, and see where you end up. That is your choice. I don't know how to say this.....you're a fool. I do not try to please God to keep myself out of Hell. He paid my price in death because He loves me and He knows I cannot be good enough to keep myself out of Hell. I am thankful to Him for giving me life, I am thankful to Him for dying in my place to save me from Hell, and I will happily serve Him with joy, receiving from Him all good things beyond imagination in Heaven. If you want to go against Him and accuse Him of being "Supreme Leader the Evil Dictator", go ahead. That's what the devil is doing, and you are of your father the devil....the works of your father you will do. So do it......keep going against God...idiot. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Your conclusion is based on your desire to walk according to your own lusts desiring God not tell you what you should or should not do. Why should He not leave you in Hell forever? You think He wants to put up with your mouth forever? Why do you think He's letting you go in death? I'd throw you out my house if you were talking against me the way you talk against God...in fact, I would throw you out for much less than what you have said about God. He has more patience than me, but then again, If I throw you out of my house, you just go out on your tail in the rain or cold. If God throws you out, your gone forever in Hell. I guess if throwing you out of my house would send you to Hell, I might be patient with you desiring you quit fighting against me. The patience of God is that while you were still fighting against Him, He executed your punishment on Himself so He is justified to keep in eternal life all who repent and believe on Him in His resurrection. But you love death, riding evolution to your grave, and straight into Hell where evolution came from and where it belongs. You will remember evolution forever if you wake up in Hell, you will remember how stupid you were. I will forget evolution because stupid things won't be allowed in Heaven. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Popular internet "information" and deceptions in currupted "education," academic studies founded and steeped in deceptions, don't tell us anything different to ponder, because they don't have accuracy in what is being compared. But to the masses of the blind following the blind, so called information and flooding deceptions are pawns that do not understand the Bible they attempt to define. Skewed partial and completely inaccurate information is accepted as truth. And Truth is twisted by no understanding! Just like liberal media, their is prespectives are that of blind men describing the part of an elephant they feel right in front of them, but never clear that is an elephant. Truth is subjective? Tell that to a judge in a court case. Can truth really be subjective? Of course not! But to this generation truth is politically correct, and is spun, and truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Non-sense! It's like trying to tell what the 1000 pieces of puzzle will look like when put completely together, or at least partially enough to see the complete picture from one or a few puzzle pieces grabbed out of the bag of 1000 pieces without the box it came in. And as far as evolution, I don't doubt Satan grew funky crap outside of the Garden, but what he couldn't achieve was harmony. So if evolution fostered life forms, it was a constant dominance battle, which could never achieve the circle of life "Lion King" natural balance. That is why evolution fails, not because of its "biology" that's why I call biologist, glorified chefs. They take life already made and exchange ingredient. But nothing is new growth, it's manipulated growth by "intelligent" input of design."biology cooks." But entropy even if it could design survivable DNA, it could never evolve to harmony and order of balanced nature of creation. It would contact antsy de-evolve, and never can evolve beyond its point of de-evolve. Dominance to decline as dominance to decline is the dance, without the Creator! So therefore, it's not a biology argument. It's a logic and reasoning argument! Even if lifeforms grew, lifeforms would constantly fall down by dominance of selective lifeforms and would always suffer set back, one step forward two steps back. We would never a have balance and harmony of nature, so therefore would not and could not thrive to what we see in the natural order of our creation. So the Creator brought Light to darkness, and form to formless, and filled void. The earth was growing in chaos of Satan's fall. God brought the highest potential 6000 years ago. Man fell, and the earth has been moving back to decay and disorder, through the decline of fallen man. Advancements are bandaids, the hearts and minds of men are violent against mankind, and nature. Entropy, even gravity its shows us, man being pulled down, sagging skin, bent over backs as we age, we shorten, loose strength against gravity, and gravity ultimately seal us in death. Pre fall our free will was above the dust, we don't really have free will anymore. We are slaves to weak will. We want to do good, new years resolution, vows, every area of life fights against our weak will. Fights in us good vs evil in us, and good vs evil in others. Our weak will, no longer free, is enslaved. Pulled down under the serpent, as we return to dust. Birth to dust. Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses. He walked in our dust. The Bible has one consistent message of Truth. We have Jesus who can sympathize with our weaknesses, and He sent His Spirit to bring us through the cross, to the Ressurection, throuh the eye of the needle. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Evolution is manipulative science, designed to remove God, and say we are gods and we created ourselves. Evolution pseudo science says, our selective process was superior, and we selected every advantage for our survival, and evolution toward superior advancements. So then where are our near equals, how did one species jump not just centimeters, inches but miles? And our self creation also was intelligent to manage economic system, balance, and harmony in nature. Yet man is proving the opposite as they devour themselves and waste their resources, and dominate, war, murder, steal, conspire, and are destructive even to their own lives, yet we are gods who self created, and as the dominant by intelligence, we the also decided what thrives and doesn't throughout our own evolutionary process. Self creation, by self god, with selfish evolution for self survival along with self thriving, and self selection of mutation for our own dominance. Such nonsense! Think it through, this is NOT biology. It's a religion! And it takes an obnoxious illogical ignorance and unverifiable faith to believe in it! . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
