No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Pottyone]

And yet it beggars belief that I am yet to hear ANY Natural history program which even suggests or hints that evolution may be at all in question. It is such a phenomenal lie and it has pervaded every part of our media, government and seat of supposed learning to the point that the general populace scoff at the very thought of a creationist mandate.
It is no wonder that when the Antichrist is manifest so many will be taken in by his lies. Evolution is is like Satan's trial run for a mass delusion experiment.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Yes and that is what I was trying to point out to.

The bible makes it clear, " All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. " ( Ecclesiastes 3:20 )

I meant inter special evolution Kenneth, the other is simply INTRASPECIAL adaptation from the existing gene pool. No additional genetic information is possible just a rearrangement of he existing DNA or even a loss of information.

 

[Lizathrose]

My point was that most who believe in evolution go by Darwin's theory of evolving from one species to another in which he himself stated before he died there is no physical evidence to support his theory.

There has been plenty of evidence supporting evolution based on cold weather species evolving to a warmer climate, or like I said before the different types of dogs we have now days that evolved from the wolf class.

Charles Darwin has never stated that no physical evidence exists to corroborate the theory of evolution by natural selection, and held true to his belief in evolution until his death. There was no documented changing of heart.

 

[kennethcadwell]

That is a lie by the scientific community to hold to his theory, it is very easy to search and find that he did make that statement. Scientists want to hold true to their theories, trying to pose them as proven facts and will debate with you on this issue.

I have come across a lot of them who want to believe theories are facts, but they fail to see the hole in their argument.


Fact: all phases to make something true must be proven

Theory: You only need 3 of 5 phases to make it plausible.

Problem is here if you can not prove the other 2 phases it can not be stated as fact. ( Hince: it is just a theory )

Charles Darwin has never stated that no physical evidence exists to corroborate the theory of evolution by natural selection, and held true to his belief in evolution until his death. There was no documented changing of heart.

 

[Lizathrose]

That is a lie by the scientific community to hold to his theory, it is very easy to search and find that he did make that statement. Scientists want to hold true to their theories, trying to pose them as proven facts and will debate with you on this issue.

I have come across a lot of them who want to believe theories are facts, but they fail to see the hole in their argument.


Fact: all phases to make something true must be proven

Theory: You only need 3 of 5 phases to make it plausible.

Problem is here if you can not prove the other 2 phases it can not be stated as fact. ( Hince: it is just a theory )

If that's the case, you'll have to direct me to the link, because I haven't been able to find anything in roughly 5 minutes of searching through various keywords and phrases.

 

[notuptome]

The bible makes one simple claim that evolutionists hate. "In the beginning God" they hate that God is the One Who made all things. Evolution removes the need for God. Science cannot grasp that God made all that is from nothing. It can only be comprehended by faith. Science cannot ever prove or disprove how all this came from nothing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[2Thewaters]

The bottom line is this
forget evolution science religion and all that
look around you
the world and all the goodness can only come from god
God is love
he would make sure I could find out about him
how so?
the bible
it is the only thing that makes sense
god is real bible is real
So

go to the bible and pray and ask god to be your god and teach you
read the bible
believe every word like this

pray before you read the bible every time
and read and read it like god is talking to you

satan is a liar
he will always do the opposite dont waste time with him arguing with him

you know there is a god
you know there is a bible
take two months
dump everything
go through the bible
and read and believe what it says.
dont even worry about anything that doesnt match the bible

let me show you

en 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
wow he is powerful thank yu God!


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
so it did exist for billions of years before creation so the rocks are real old
ok thank you God


And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
God creates he is wise, I could not imagine this planet from just water... He is great


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
and he created light!
just like that
scientists dont even know what light is
why sould I believe them
they talked that light was wave and particle depending on what they do they are all puzzled
they are fools
God knows what light is he created it and its speed
so he must be faster than light!
awesopme!
I have a god that is faster than light!
scientists have no hope for faster than light
fools


Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good:
with light came E=mc^2, plancks constant and all the laws of physics and gravity
he created the unified field theory in a second

scientists done teven know what it is!
God is awesome!
scientists are fools

and God divided the light from the darkness.
cool



Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day,
and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

man that is so cool
he creates the spin speed of the earth the orbits the mass times accelration everything

did you know he made the gravity constant and attractive force to exactly counter mass?
scientists are still awestruck about that so all things fall at same speed!

God is super smart


anyway keep reading
so far Im with god
Scientists can go argue with the other fools they are dolts.

he made the galazies and constellations in a moment way faster than light
no big bang

big bang is NOT A THEORY!

scientists are liears

theory is something TESTED IN THE LAB AND PROVEN
the THEORY of the big bang is a lie

it is a hypothosis speculation
it can NEVER be a theory
it cant be tested
big bang is a goofy religion

etc
etc

why would you believe the fools after such a chapter?



calculate the odds of making one insulin molecule randomly

and you will tell them
get outa here you fools
it cant happen.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Simona25]

The bible makes one simple claim that evolutionists hate. "In the beginning God" they hate that God is the One Who made all things. Evolution removes the need for God. Science cannot grasp that God made all that is from nothing. It can only be comprehended by faith. Science cannot ever prove or disprove how all this came from nothing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Atheism removes God, not science.
Science tries to respond to the question "How?", while religion to the question "Why?".

 

[kennethcadwell]

In the book, "Origins of science, " Darwin takes and debates all his theories on evolution, and how no physical evidence has ever been found to prove evolution form one species to another. And that the fossil record known as the, Cambrian explosion, shoots a big hole in his theory.

If that's the case, you'll have to direct me to the link, because I haven't been able to find anything in roughly 5 minutes of searching through various keywords and phrases.

 

[2Thewaters]

true scienc is REPRODUCIBLE IN THE LAB

true science will ALWAYS VERIFY THE BIBLE and what it syas

see
they twisted science!redefined it1
science falsely so called

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Why shouldn't the concept of theistic evolution apply as a way to reconcile well-founded science with religious material?

because it doesn't reconcile them...theistic evolution is just a new mythology that contradicts both...

 

[JackH]

This leads them then to diss any idea of a creation based history of the world and therefore a disbelief in the book of Genesis as the truth of God's word.

The disbelief comes more from when someone says the earth is around 6,000 years old and the like.

 

[Lizathrose]

In the book, "Origins of science, " Darwin takes and debates all his theories on evolution, and how no physical evidence has ever been found to prove evolution form one species to another. And that the fossil record known as the, Cambrian explosion, shoots a big hole in his theory.

Darwin never authored such a book. If you're referring to Origins of Species, and I'll of course assume that you are, you're gravely out of context. Darwin specifically and explicitly argues in favor of evolution by way of natural selection through material cited from his Beagle expedition in the 1830s, as well as from information gathered from subsequent findings through later research, correspondence, and experimentation. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion as referenced by Darwin as a potential refutation of evolution isn't a contextually valid objection his theory, since the contemporary understanding of the Cambrian explosion differs substantially from Darwin's initial musings.

Moreover, and to reiterate, Darwin never states that no physical evidence exists to corroborate his theory in his book -- in fact, if you've read the book, it's quite clear that the opposite is true.

 

[kennethcadwell]

No the book was called origins of science, and Darwin was not the author, but he was questioned in this book about his theory and he made several debates about how no clear cut evidence has been found to prove his theory. And he made the quote that Cambrian explosion is very damaging to his theory.

Darwin never authored such a book. If you're referring to Origins of Species, and I'll of course assume that you are, you're gravely out of context. Darwin specifically and explicitly argues in favor of evolution by way of natural selection through material cited from his Beagle expedition in the 1830s, as well as from information gathered from subsequent findings through later research, correspondence, and experimentation. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion as referenced by Darwin as a potential refutation of evolution isn't a contextually valid objection his theory, since the contemporary understanding of the Cambrian explosion differs substantially from Darwin's initial musings.

Moreover, and to reiterate, Darwin never states that no physical evidence exists to corroborate his theory in his book -- in fact, if you've read the book, it's quite clear that the opposite is true.

 

[kennethcadwell]

“NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed.” —Charles Darwin

 

[Lizathrose]

No the book was called origins of science, and Darwin was not the author, but he was questioned in this book about his theory and he made several debates about how no clear cut evidence has been found to prove his theory. And he made the quote that Cambrian explosion is very damaging to his theory.

You're citing a very obscure book, then. If you're alluding to Louis Liebenberg's book, which is the only work I've been able to reference under the name "Origin of Science," I'm unable to find any material related to Charles Darwin beyond superficial references that praise and regard his contributions to science in the free e-book I've skimmed through. The book says nothing of Darwin's theory of evolution at length, and certainly doesn't appear to reference potential objections to evolution -- or objections that Darwin himself has noted as being potentially plausible, for that matter.

Really, you'll have to cite whatever book you're referring to via a link here, or in a private message to me. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm highly skeptical that the material you're alluding to even exists -- namely, his quotes in context concerning a lack of physical evidence to corroborate his theory and the book that allegedly contains these quotes.

 

[JackH]

There is no true evidence to support species to species evolution like man from ape. Even Darwin said before he died that there is no true physical evidence to support this theory.

Do you believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

If not, how old do you believe the earth is?

An answer within a few million years is good enough for me.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I am sorry to say but I can not make that assumption, because that is what it would be. Scientists use dating methods that are proven to be inaccurate, so you can not go by them. The bible gives us a guide line from the garden of Eden to now which is around the 6000 years we get. Now the thing I pay attention to is that the bible does not say how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they were deceived by the serpent, plus there is the scripture that says 1,000 years is like one day, and one day is like 1,000 years. So if this is to mean one day of creation was actually 1,000 of our years then that would add more years to the age of the earth.

I do not debate the age faction because there is no fact bases for either side nor does it matter for salvation. I do believe God created the earth, stars, planets, heaven, and all else...

Do you believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

If not, how old do you believe the earth is?

An answer within a few million years is good enough for me.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

While it is true that Genesis is a literal and true account of ancient history, I do not beleive it is necessary for salvation as Jesus is the only one necessary for salvation.

Nevertheless, I do see the point that because of flawed pseudo-science and much brainwashing and propaganda that many people especially around my age disbelieve in Genesis or twist the scriptures to their own undoing. However don't be too worried because this is an easy delusion to dispel, and funny enough even from a strict scientific point of view, Genesis is more plausible via hard evidence than the fiction of an earth that is millions or billions or even hundreds of thousands of years old which is only supportable by unproven theories that have no evidence at all.

 

[kennethcadwell]

In post 35 I gave a quote directly from Darwin.

You're citing a very obscure book, then. If you're alluding to Louis Liebenberg's book, which is the only work I've been able to reference under the name "Origin of Science," I'm unable to find any material related to Charles Darwin beyond superficial references that praise and regard his contributions to science in the free e-book I've skimmed through. The book says nothing of Darwin's theory of evolution at length, and certainly doesn't appear to reference potential objections to evolution -- or objections that Darwin himself has noted as being potentially plausible, for that matter.

Really, you'll have to cite whatever book you're referring to via a link here, or in a private message to me. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm highly skeptical that the material you're alluding to even exists -- namely, his quotes in context concerning a lack of physical evidence to corroborate his theory and the book that allegedly contains these quotes.