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

[jdbear]

Darwin was a racist too. His Origin of Species is actually subtitled:

"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. "

Those who promote his satanic belief are embarrassed by the actual title, so they shorten it, but the book declares how Charles believed the Caucasian race to be superior to darker skinned races. He thought blacks were one step up from gorillas, but believing error only leads to more error and evil.

 

[JackH]

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...

You are evading the question.

Do you believe the earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old?

The answer to that makes a considerable difference as to whether or not any evolution with respect to species could occur.

 

[Lizathrose]

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

I've been able to track this obscure "quote" to an autobiography entitled The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, and I've been able to verify that it is indeed a textually and contextually inaccurate quote mine. Here's the full statement for context.

"P.S. In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. [He lists the 3 general considerations.] When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed) nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Darwin is saying (albeit not very well, given that this is an afterthought to a letter as opposed to an edited work) that as of 1863 (only 4 years after publication of Origin of Species), we didn't have the kind of details that would show the evolutionary change of any one specific species. (He had no way of knowing that the future discovery of many fossils and of DNA, and dozens of other discoveries, would provide this detailed evidence in spades.) Instead (as he he describes in the sentence leading up to this) "In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations." (Note the words "at present" --this was written in 1863.)

Again, Darwin doesn't assert that no physical evidence exists to corroborate his theory, but rather that he was at the time unable to prove the mechanisms by which specific organisms evolve -- hence his statement concerning "general considerations." If Darwin had believed that no evidence at the time could substantiate his theory, he wouldn't have published and supported it. In essence, Darwin is merely admitting the extent to which science was at the time capable of substantiating his theory to the point of a reliable scientific assertion of proof. Ultimately, no specific mention of a lack of physical evidence appears to exist in any of Darwin's publications or referenced quotes, this one included. Rather, Darwin is admitting that the finer points of his theory were yet to be scientifically substantiated to the point that they could be referenced as factual.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

You are evading the question.

Do you believe the earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old?

The answer to that makes a considerable difference as to whether or not any evolution with respect to species could occur.

All hard evidence points to the earth, post-death enterring the world, being between 5000-7000 years old.

 

[Lizathrose]

In post 35 I gave a quote directly from Darwin.

No, you gave an edited quote mine that fails to address the context of Darwin's intent, which is a gross misrepresentation of the context of the actual quote. That's both dishonest and willfully ignorant.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I did not evade nothing. I made it clear neither side has true proven evidence on the actual age.

Like I said before micro-evolution ( evolving from one environment to another did/does occur, same species group to same species group; dog from wolf does happen )

Macro-evolution ( one species family evolving to another species family; man from ape ) No evidence to prove it.

You are evading the question.

Do you believe the earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old?

The answer to that makes a considerable difference as to whether or not any evolution with respect to species could occur.

 

[kennethcadwell]

That was not an edited quote, hince why it is in quotation marks. It is a direct saying from him, and I know its hard for some one to grasp who believes his theory to grasp.

Like I said before trying to hold on to a theory as fact is bad philosophy.

No, you gave an edited quote mine that fails to address the context of Darwin's intent, which is a gross misrepresentation of the context of the actual quote. That's both dishonest and willfully ignorant.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I read your statement about the quote I gave, and even though it may not be exactly like the one I found. It still says the same thing, and yes it would refer to no physical evidence has been found. If physical evidence had been found his theory would have been proven, therefore a fact. But he states he can not prove his theory, hince no physical evidence found.

I've been able to track this obscure "quote" to an autobiography entitled The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, and I've been able to verify that it is indeed a textually and contextually inaccurate quote mine. Here's the full statement for context.

"P.S. In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. [He lists the 3 general considerations.] When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed) nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Darwin is saying (albeit not very well, given that this is an afterthought to a letter as opposed to an edited work) that as of 1863 (only 4 years after publication of Origin of Species), we didn't have the kind of details that would show the evolutionary change of any one specific species. (He had no way of knowing that the future discovery of many fossils and of DNA, and dozens of other discoveries, would provide this detailed evidence in spades.) Instead (as he he describes in the sentence leading up to this) "In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations." (Note the words "at present" --this was written in 1863.)

Again, Darwin doesn't assert that no physical evidence exists to corroborate his theory, but rather that he was at the time unable to prove the mechanisms by which specific organisms evolve -- hence his statement concerning "general considerations." If Darwin had believed that no evidence at the time could substantiate his theory, he wouldn't have published and supported it. In essence, Darwin is merely admitting the extent to which science was at the time capable of substantiating his theory to the point of a reliable scientific assertion of proof. Ultimately, no specific mention of a lack of physical evidence appears to exist in any of Darwin's publications or referenced quotes, this one included. Rather, Darwin is admitting that the finer points of his theory were yet to be scientifically substantiated to the point that they could be referenced as factual.

 

[Lizathrose]

That was not an edited quote, hince why it is in quotation marks. It is a direct saying from him, and I know its hard for some one to grasp who believes his theory to grasp.

Like I said before trying to hold on to a theory as fact is bad philosophy.

I've directly proved that it is indeed an edited quote through the reference above. The word "ever" isn't present in the actual quote, for instance -- it's a fabrication used for emphasis that can't be referenced. You're free to check the letter if you'd like through Gutenberg -- just search for the title of the work in the site's search engine. And, again, I'll reiterate that you aren't addressing the context of Darwin's letter at all.

 

[Lizathrose]

I read your statement about the quote I gave, and even though it may not be exactly like the one I found. It still says the same thing, and yes it would refer to no physical evidence has been found. If physical evidence had been found his theory would have been proven, therefore a fact. But he states he can not prove his theory, hince no physical evidence found.

You fail to grasp the nature and definition of evidence as it applies in scientific inquiry. Again, Darwin isn't asserting that no evidence exists to support his theory, but rather that the limited information available at the time wasn't adequate to prove the finer points of his theory, hence the words "general considerations" and "at present." This isn't to imply that his theory was unsubstantiated speculation at the time, and Darwin would certainly object to such an implication in light of his established position throughout his later years. Furthermore, to imply that Darwin's concerns a mere handful of years after the first scientifically credible publication on evolution can be construed as a legitimate objection to his theory is pointless, given the extent to which his theory has been developed and expanded throughout the years.

It can't be overstated that a scientific theory doesn't become widely-accepted and thoroughly well-substantiated overnight. Darwin's position at the time reflects this, and serves as an example of good scientific conduct.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Once again it takes evidence to prove something to be a fact. Theories are not fully supported by facts. They have unproven parts to them. You must be a science supporter for you do just like people who rely on science for all answers do. They try to constantly dance around that a theory is not fact. And if only three out of five areas can be proven it does not make the whole theory fact. It means its plausible, but may not be true.

You fail to grasp the nature and definition of evidence as it applies in scientific inquiry. Again, Darwin isn't asserting that no evidence exists to support his theory, but rather that the limited information available at the time wasn't adequate to prove the finer points of his theory, hence the words "general considerations" and "at present." This isn't to imply that his theory was unsubstantiated speculation at the time, and Darwin would certainly object to such an implication in light of his established position throughout his later years. Furthermore, to imply that Darwin's concerns a mere handful of years after the first scientifically credible publication on evolution can be construed as a legitimate objection to his theory is pointless, given the extent to which his theory has been developed and expanded throughout the years.

It can't be overstated that a scientific theory doesn't become widely-accepted and thoroughly well-substantiated overnight. Darwin's position at the time reflects this, and serves as an example of good scientific conduct.

 

[Lizathrose]

Once again it takes evidence to prove something to be a fact.

And that evidence was the basis of Charles Darwin's Origins of Species, hence your misunderstanding of the nature of evidence as it applies in scientific inquiry. You have a false impression of scientific evidence as it pertains to facts and theories -- in a sense, and considering your contextual misinterpretation of Darwin's quote, you're attempting to argue that if evidence proving a theory doesn't exist, it's unsubstantiated by evidence in general. In reality, the strength of a theory on the basis of evidence is contingent upon the extent to which evidence for said theory exists; and, since evidence proving the evolution of specific species (through an established mechanism) hadn't been thoroughly substantiated by the scientific community at the time (hence the wording of the quote above), Darwin was correct in that he indeed couldn't prove or substantiate the underlying mechanism of his theory beyond observational hypotheses. The sentiment of the scientific community at the time reflected this, even though evolution in general had been widely accepted in the years following he publication of Origins of Species.

 

[crossnote]

Why shouldn't the concept of theistic evolution apply as a way to reconcile well-founded science with religious material? I don't know of any explicit scriptural prohibitions concerning evolution if Genesis is taken allegorically as opposed to literally. Inconsistencies in terms of the appropriate interpretation of a given biblical event can be resolved simply by citing discernment.

If Genesis is taken allegorically...then any thing goes.

 

[ecclescakez]

Lmao

Evolution is rooted in pantheism. Fact. It was loved by Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin. Used as the foundation for their genocide. Its origins, around 3000 years ago. Its not new, and its not scientific. Its humanist doctrine, and requires faith to believe.

Mr Charles Darwin's book:

"The origin of the species: the preservation of "FAVOURED RACES" in the struggle for life". Look it up.

"No rational man believes the negro is the equal, no less the superior of the white man"- Thomas Huxley- Charles Darwin's personal spokesman. Look it up.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."- Mr Charles Darwin.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Evidence was the basis, the fact he had no evidence and there still is no evidence to prove one species from another

And that evidence was the basis of Charles Darwin's Origins of Species, hence your misunderstanding of the nature of evidence as it applies in scientific inquiry. You have a false impression of scientific evidence as it pertains to facts and theories -- in a sense, and considering your contextual misinterpretation of Darwin's quote, you're attempting to argue that if evidence proving a theory doesn't exist, it's unsubstantiated by evidence in general. In reality, the strength of a theory on the basis of evidence is contingent upon the extent to which evidence for said theory exists; and, since evidence proving the evolution of specific species (through an established mechanism) hadn't been thoroughly substantiated by the scientific community at the time (hence the wording of the quote above), Darwin was correct in that he indeed couldn't prove or substantiate the underlying mechanism of his theory beyond observational hypotheses. The sentiment of the scientific community at the time reflected this, even though evolution in general had been widely accepted in the years following he publication of Origins of Species.

 

[ji]

Recently I have been doing some street work with young folks and a constant theme with them, is that they are bombarded in school, college and the media in general ( see EVERY NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAM ON THE TV) with the theory that the world evolved. 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. Once you compromise on Genesis, you compromise on the basic principles of our faith....sin entering the world as a result of man's disobedience, death as a result of sin, mans separation from God and the need for salvation, Satan as a reality, marriage between a man and a women etc.
In My opinion a rejection of creation is possibly Satan's greatest achievement and one which he has successfully propagated throughout history......
Many Christians state that A belief in Creation is not something to get too "worked up about" as it is not really a "salvation matter"......I beg to differ. It is possibly the biggest stumbling block to the non christians ability to see their need for Salvation ......
evolution is Satanic in origin and must be tackled everywhere it is encountered!!

Yes its Vital to Trust Genesis.Because Hebrews 11 KJV is Testifying it.

God Bless and Thanks for Sharing

 

[ecclescakez]

Lmao

Evolution is rooted in pantheism. Fact. It was loved by Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin. Used as the foundation for their genocide. Its origins, around 3000 years ago. Its not new, and its not scientific. Its humanist doctrine, and requires faith to believe.

Mr Charles Darwin's book:

"The origin of the species: the preservation of "FAVOURED RACES" in the struggle for life". Look it up.

"No rational man believes the negro is the equal, no less the superior of the white man"- Thomas Huxley- Charles Darwin's personal spokesman. Look it up.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."- Mr Charles Darwin.

"We are all one, lets all hold hands and worship ourselves and creation. Forget Heaven, lets reincarnate. What shall our symbol be for this never ending process?"

 

[ji]

And that evidence was the basis of Charles Darwin's Origins of Species, hence your misunderstanding of the nature of evidence as it applies in scientific inquiry. You have a false impression of scientific evidence as it pertains to facts and theories -- in a sense, and considering your contextual misinterpretation of Darwin's quote, you're attempting to argue that if evidence proving a theory doesn't exist, it's unsubstantiated by evidence in general. In reality, the strength of a theory on the basis of evidence is contingent upon the extent to which evidence for said theory exists; and, since evidence proving the evolution of specific species (through an established mechanism) hadn't been thoroughly substantiated by the scientific community at the time (hence the wording of the quote above), Darwin was correct in that he indeed couldn't prove or substantiate the underlying mechanism of his theory beyond observational hypotheses. The sentiment of the scientific community at the time reflected this, even though evolution in general had been widely accepted in the years following he publication of Origins of Species.

Here is the problem with evolution mixing with Creation in Holy Bible.

*evolution is an r&d theory with no backup of historical info/records dating back at least 1000 years back.
*evolution doesn't explain where the life energy is coming from.
*evolution gives a blind eye to spiritual realms.
*evolution is threat to nature since it gives permission to put people/animals/plants and other natural things to test without checking whether its breaching natural barriers God set. - this is the most dangerous thing about evolution.

Just a few of them pointed out here and still many more to say.But some of the important ones are here.
May God bless you and Open your eyes to All Truth in Jesus Christ.
2Kings 6:15-17 KJV

note:- am not better than you,but i realized one day devil was cheating me and realized 90% of the education standards around the world is corrupted wilt this nonsense theory.Sorry to say this,but True.

 

[ecclescakez]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtx8__yX3uk- Why evolution is stupid- Dr Kent Hovind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-YObQwO_4o- Evolution is not scientific- Malcolm Bowden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmcv5Ro9BYo- God inspired the Bible, mathematically proven- Malcolm Bowden

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/2UXclhjZods/mqdefault.jpg- Evidence against evolution and for creation- Malcolm Bowden

Free File Hosting - Online Storage; Upload Mp3, Videos, Music. Backup Files Creation declares the Glory of God, the scientific evidence of God's visitation in Exodus 19-20.

 

[ecclescakez]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtx8__yX3uk- Why evolution is stupid- Dr Kent Hovind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-YObQwO_4o- Evolution is not scientific- Malcolm Bowden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmcv5Ro9BYo- God inspired the Bible, mathematically proven- Malcolm Bowden

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/2UXclhjZods/mqdefault.jpg- Evidence against evolution and for creation- Malcolm Bowden

Free File Hosting - Online Storage; Upload Mp3, Videos, Music. Backup Files Creation declares the Glory of God, the scientific evidence of God's visitation in Exodus 19-20.

CORRECTED LINK - http://www.filedropper.com/doc373-1_1