|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
gabriel <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote in : : : which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware, : : we don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study : : of DNA in genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ...... : : No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that : shows this. : : Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution : you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving, : over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] : at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish. : : Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable, : not testable, not verifiable - not science. : : taking advice from a creationist is laughable ....... fact is ..... : you lot are a laughing stock to most of the educated world ...... : silly primitive beliefs, held by silly primitive minds ( i.e. you and : your fellow creationists ) are very funny to watch ........ but : unfortunately held by too many uneducated yokels ........ This string of insults does not make up for the fact that you cannot provide a test case of your version of evolution - proof that your beliefs are not science. Care to prove otherwise? Please present such a test case. there's plenty of evidence of speciation ....... Speciation is not even remotely the fish to man version of evolution. Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations, more [flies] that in rare cases are what we classify as a slightly different species of [flies] - but ~still [flies]~. (true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence). That's not the fish to man version of evolution. The fish to man version of evolution would be populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. (just like people, hippos, giraffes and eagles are all clearly no longer fish at all, although they believe all such things and more evolved from populations of fish over generations once upon a time). Please provide an actual observation or test case of your version of evolution. Thank you. three simple letters ..... ERV ..... Endogenous Retro Virus .... or .... PFR ...... Protein Functional Redundancy ( my favourite )........ read 'em and weep ..... http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evide... Your beliefs about retroviruses do not make up for the fact that you don't have a single observation or test case of your version of evolution in action: populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. (just like people, hippos, giraffes and eagles are all clearly no longer fish at all, although they believe all such things and more evolved from populations of fish over generations once upon a time). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html Not a scientific site. And also not a single observation nor test case of the fish to man version of evolution in action - just reasons they have faith in it. Welcome to religion. http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-5-endoge... http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-endogenous-retroviruses-pro... Blogs. Not a scientific site. Meanwhile even if it was, not a single observation nor test case of the fish to man version of evolution in action - just more reasons why they have faith in their beliefs. Again, welcome to religion. feel free to explain why PFR ( in particular ) is not evidence for evolution ..... Simple: feel free to explain why your version of evolution is still not observable nor able to be shown actually happening in test cases. So PFR is just a reason you have faith in your beliefs - not science. of course .... while were at it ....... you might like to answer this .... as you seem so deathly scared to answer it ...... why is that ?? I see you are trying to divert ....... nothing unusual there ..... if you have some Scientific peer reviewed papers that can support Creation please let us all know ........ I can direct you to THOUSANDS of such papers supporting Evolution ....... until you do that you have lost this argument Gabbers ..... No need to, as I never claimed creation was science. In fact, no origins theory can qualify as science. The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short - the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science. Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or testable/verifiable. Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to everyone else) that supports evolution. The beliefs themselves remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable! Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists will then return to the actual truth of what science really is and refute that notion with Show a single observation or test/verification of God creating anything. Bingo. The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies] (but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all of those things and most everything else evolved from populations of fish and worse over generations once upon a time. But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer - just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint on either choice, the choice is obvious. Meanwhile note you still have not provided a single observation nor test case of your version of evolution - only reasons you have faith in it. Not science, as disappointing and exasperating as the truth may be to some. all your ignorant god soaked ranting is water off a ducks back ...... the ultimate arbiter of what is 'Science' .... here's a hint .... it isn't YOU ....... http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ says you are wrong ...... unless you can show where the National Academies of Science have got it wrong .... you lose ...... simple as that ..... I await your peer reviewed treatise demolishing the NAS ...... until that is published ...... you lose the argument ...... none of your 'fish to man' blathering makes a shred of difference ..... YOU have to come up with scientific argument that demolishes the established evidence and replaces the current Theory ( accepted by the NAS ) ...... so get to it Gabbers ..... start writing that Treatise Note you still have not provided a single observation nor test case of your version of evolution actually happening - only reasons you have faith in it. That site also does not have a single observation nor a single test case showing the fish to man version of evolution actually happening. Not science, as disappointing and exasperating as the truth may be to some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
the ultimate arbiter of what is 'Science' .... here's a hint .... it isn't YOU ....... http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ says you are wrong ...... unless you can show where the National Academies of Science have got it wrong .... you lose ...... simple as that ..... I await your peer reviewed treatise demolishing the NAS ...... until that is published ...... you lose the argument ...... none of your 'fish to man' blathering makes a shred of difference ..... YOU have to come up with scientific argument that demolishes the established evidence and replaces the current Theory ( accepted by the NAS ) ...... so get to it Gabbers ..... start writing that Treatise Note you still have not provided a single observation nor test case of your version of evolution actually happening - only reasons you have faith in it. That site also does not have a single observation nor a single test case showing the fish to man version of evolution actually happening. Not science, as disappointing and exasperating as the truth may be to some. Is your faith so weak that you have to lie about science? Maybe you need to jettison your false beliefs and start to learn something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
: : : which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware, : : we don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study : : of DNA in genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ...... : : No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that : shows this. : : Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution : you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving, : over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] : at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish. : : Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable, : not testable, not verifiable - not science. : : taking advice from a creationist is laughable ....... fact is ..... : you lot are a laughing stock to most of the educated world ...... : silly primitive beliefs, held by silly primitive minds ( i.e. you and : your fellow creationists ) are very funny to watch ........ but : unfortunately held by too many uneducated yokels ........ This string of insults does not make up for the fact that you cannot provide a test case of your version of evolution - proof that your beliefs are not science. Care to prove otherwise? Please present such a test case. there's plenty of evidence of speciation ....... Speciation is not even remotely the fish to man version of evolution. Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations, more [flies] that in rare cases are what we classify as a slightly different species of [flies] - but ~still [flies]~. (true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence). That's not the fish to man version of evolution. The fish to man version of evolution would be populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. (just like people, hippos, giraffes and eagles are all clearly no longer fish at all, although they believe all such things and more evolved from populations of fish over generations once upon a time). Please provide an actual observation or test case of your version of evolution. Thank you. three simple letters ..... ERV ..... Endogenous Retro Virus .... or .... PFR ...... Protein Functional Redundancy ( my favourite )........ read 'em and weep ..... http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evide... Your beliefs about retroviruses do not make up for the fact that you don't have a single observation or test case of your version of evolution in action: populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. (just like people, hippos, giraffes and eagles are all clearly no longer fish at all, although they believe all such things and more evolved from populations of fish over generations once upon a time). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html Not a scientific site. And also not a single observation nor test case of the fish to man version of evolution in action - just reasons they have faith in it. Welcome to religion. http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-5-endoge... http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-endogenous-retroviruses-pro... Blogs. Not a scientific site. Meanwhile even if it was, not a single observation nor test case of the fish to man version of evolution in action - just more reasons why they have faith in their beliefs. Again, welcome to religion. feel free to explain why PFR ( in particular ) is not evidence for evolution ..... Simple: feel free to explain why your version of evolution is still not observable nor able to be shown actually happening in test cases. So PFR is just a reason you have faith in your beliefs - not science. of course .... while were at it ....... you might like to answer this .... as you seem so deathly scared to answer it ...... why is that ?? I see you are trying to divert ....... nothing unusual there ..... if you have some Scientific peer reviewed papers that can support Creation please let us all know ........ I can direct you to THOUSANDS of such papers supporting Evolution ....... until you do that you have lost this argument Gabbers ..... No need to, as I never claimed creation was science. In fact, no origins theory can qualify as science. The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short - the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science. Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or testable/verifiable. Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to everyone else) that supports evolution. The beliefs themselves remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable! Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists will then return to the actual truth of what science really is and refute that notion with Show a single observation or test/verification of God creating anything. Bingo. The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies] (but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all of those things and most everything else evolved from populations of fish and worse over generations once upon a time. But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer - just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint on either choice, the choice is obvious. Meanwhile note you still have not provided a single observation nor test case of your version of evolution - only reasons you have faith in it. Not science, as disappointing and exasperating as the truth may be to some. all your ignorant god soaked ranting is water off a ducks back ...... the ultimate arbiter of what is 'Science' .... here's a hint .... it isn't YOU ....... http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ says you are wrong ...... unless you can show where the National Academies of Science have got it wrong .... you lose ...... simple as that ..... I await your peer reviewed treatise demolishing the NAS ...... until that is published ...... you lose the argument ...... none of your 'fish to man' blathering makes a shred of difference ..... YOU have to come up with scientific argument that demolishes the established evidence and replaces the current Theory ( accepted by the NAS ) ...... so get to it Gabbers ..... start writing that Treatise Note you still have not provided a single observation nor test case of your version of evolution actually happening - only reasons you have faith in it. That site also does not have a single observation nor a single test case showing the fish to man version of evolution actually happening. Not science, as disappointing and exasperating as the truth may be to some. except YOU don't get to make the rules as to 'what' science is or isn't ....... so YOUR stupid strawman argument fails miserably ....... I will repeat the most basic rule that even YOU have to comply with in order to be in the game ..... unless you can show where the National Academies of Science have got it wrong .... you lose ...... simple as that ..... why is it that you can't ....or won't do that .... ?? I don't have to provide any test cases or observations ...... YOU have to provide LEGITIMATE science that demolishes the established ... read more »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
|
You put tremendous faith in the men who decided which ones to include and which ones not, as much or more one could say than in God himself. Why do you put your faith in the ones that tell you what to believe instead? I put my faith in God and Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit that has clearly opened my eyes to what made no sense before. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:1-4 KJV - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
|
sort of thing Satan does: teach others to not trust God's Word, but instead to trust the leader of your own organization, which contradicts God's Word in many ways. Have you ever thought of the possibility that Satan uses a book of obscure and inconclusive verses to divide and befuddle the masses? Because that's exactly what's happened you know. for the Pope in his only 2 statements, spends much time in consultation and prayer with the Church deriving that infallible statement. The Pope, basis Mat 16:17, learned directly from the Father, I thought you said the Bible was not infallible? So how can you use it as a basis for anything you say? You can't. You merely have personal, selective belief, while changing other things in it you do not like, and referring to other man made books instead. That's been going on since the first week of creation by satan. The opposite to selective (discerning/thinking) belief, is dogmatic fanatical belief. That's how the fanatics think and they end up flying planes into buildings. You're never going to get through life by thinking in absolutes and black and white and always putting all your bets on only one thing. An infallible Bible is actually a very convenient thing to have. No thinking or searching for the truth is required. Just lots of assumptions and *personal* *selective* private interpretations and you're away. Satan likes to make things nice and convenient for his prospective followers. That is why we now have over 10,000 Christian denominations and sects all arguing with each other and getting no-where. You may not have selective beliefs, but you do get selective meanings from your personal interpretations. and the Holy Spirit is that spirit sent by Christ to be teacher, counselor, comforter and guide to the Church. And the 2 ex-cathedra statements are _base_d on firm profession by the new Christians back in 33AD, but which were not written down then. The 12 disciples learned directly from Jesus Christ, the Father, for a great many months, and the Holy Spirit that Christ promised would be sent to them directly. And what makes you think that their real knowledge actually made it into our modern Bibles without being removed and edited by the RCC when they compiled the first one? You make so many blind religious assumptions its obscene. Satan must love you. John 14:25-26 KJV 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. And Jesus Christ Himself testified to the authenticity of _script_ure, and how it cannot be dissolved, even though some people falsely teach that it can be. Well, the RCC managed to dissolved it and use that to make one for themselves. And F.Y.I.. the ancient _script_ures/texts that Christ testified to no longer exist And they were very different to what we have now in the 'produced and edited for the common masses' versions. Ask any scholar. John 10:34-35 KJV 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the _script_ure cannot be broken; For anyone to claim the Word of God is not infallible is to be as Satan and teach Did God *really* say ... ? , teaching others to ignore God's Word and/or pick and choose what you want to obey. (which explains why the RCC has deleted the commandment to not create any graven images of anything in heaven above or earth below, and instead split the do not covet commandment into two separate 'do not covet' commandments. Meanwhile they create statues of angels and Jesus and saints and have them up all over the place - having people pray to those professing saints as if they are omnipresent - a quality only God has). What? You mean the RCC was successful in deleting and editing commandments of all things from a Bible? I thought you said all Bibles are infallible. Exodus 20:4 KJV 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven (carved) image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Genesis 3:1-5 KJV 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. People want to dismiss Genesis as being an allegory, yet they can't even learn what it would be saying as an allegory: that satan will always attack God's Word, getting people to wonder if God really did say what He said. Satan doesn't attack God's Word, he attacks us, and he uses books to do it as well. You are a book fanatic who likes to have things convenient and all in one hard cover so you don't have to search for the truth as Jesus said we all must. Satan hates people searching for the truth. John 5:45-47 KJV 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Matthew 11:15 KJV 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
bible bingo"" Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
|
|
|
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:1-4 KJV Can that verse potentially also apply to Bible zealots? I definitely think so. We have 10,000+ arguing Christian sects and denominations all attesting to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
