The Lie of Evolution......
- Thread starter FirstLovedByHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Life comes from God. As for variations , that too is God. The point is no species has ever added DNA codes to itself making a entirely different creature. Adaptation is not adding new DNA but a tapping into recessive genes to adapt over time , to stress and changes in the natural world.
-
1
- Show all
U
Of course animals and plants are not sinners therefore their death is not from Adam.
Also, as you said, God prepared a special garden for Adam, it was not the whole planet.
Also, how would Adam know what "you will die" means, if he never saw anything to die, not even insects.
I think the curse of a ground is a symbolic expression that Adam will not live in some kind of protected, isolated and guarded garden, but will be pushed away, into wilderness and will have to take care about his bread, himself. With all the dangers, pains and struggle it brings.
Or, that the garden of Eden will decay.
What do you think it means? That God created carnivors and a totally different ecosystem? Or that he even changed laws of the universe? You would read the Genesis very metaphorically, then
Also, as you said, God prepared a special garden for Adam, it was not the whole planet.
Also, how would Adam know what "you will die" means, if he never saw anything to die, not even insects.
I think the curse of a ground is a symbolic expression that Adam will not live in some kind of protected, isolated and guarded garden, but will be pushed away, into wilderness and will have to take care about his bread, himself. With all the dangers, pains and struggle it brings.
Or, that the garden of Eden will decay.
What do you think it means? That God created carnivors and a totally different ecosystem? Or that he even changed laws of the universe? You would read the Genesis very metaphorically, then
Romans 8:22
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Speciation requires death, it cannot have occurred prior to Adam unless one believes death/entropy was present before the fall.
Paul asserts the whole of creation
‘The words [pasa hē ktisis], the whole creation, are so comprehensive, that nothing
should be excluded which the nature of the subject and the context do not show cannot be embraced within their scope.’
Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans , p. 273
-
1
- Show all
These are quite weak arguments to reject huge portions of natural sciences.
Verses you are using are vague, you only imply some interpretations you are used to.
Of course it requires death before Adam. But there is no verse (not even one) in the whole Bible saying that the death of animals came after Adam (and you would need at least three, which is a rule for establishing some biblical model).
Verses you are using are vague, you only imply some interpretations you are used to.
Of course it requires death before Adam. But there is no verse (not even one) in the whole Bible saying that the death of animals came after Adam (and you would need at least three, which is a rule for establishing some biblical model).
U
I have not rejected science at all, I rather hold it to its true standards of proof whether mathematical or observational.
Speciation in a lab is not proof of speciation in the natural world which occured millions of years ago.
There is no leap of faith when I control the all variables and subject a metal to a certain stressor and it fractures in the lab. I have proof that a certain metal will fracture under that stress and it does not require a leap of faith.
Big difference.
Speciation in a lab is not proof of speciation in the natural world which occured millions of years ago.
There is no leap of faith when I control the all variables and subject a metal to a certain stressor and it fractures in the lab. I have proof that a certain metal will fracture under that stress and it does not require a leap of faith.
Big difference.
-
1
- Show all
The supposed "Christian evolution violates what the bible teaches in the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
Either the Bible being the Word of God is 100% accurate or we throw it away. Today in genetics looking at DNA and how different breeds come about it has been found they are losing some of the of the DNA from the original DNA of the species. None of DNA was modified or added to. Scientists have been working on this for a long time. Here is a list of sites I keep in a file.
Some sites refuting big bang evolution
Five Atheist Miracles
http://creation.com/five-atheist-miracles
Evidence for Creation
http://www.icr.org/evidence/
http://creation.com/archaeology-supports-bible
Layers in canyon supporting flood
https://creation.com/surprise-canyon
OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts)
http://s8int.com
Hidden treasures in junk DNA - not useless after all
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/
Big Bang Busted by 33 Top Scientists
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Additional Scientists Sign Up
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401081546/http://cosmologystatement.org/
Genetic study reveals 90% of animals appeared at the same time
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
Things found in coal etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/artifacts/bell/
http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=stuff_in_coal
Either the Bible being the Word of God is 100% accurate or we throw it away. Today in genetics looking at DNA and how different breeds come about it has been found they are losing some of the of the DNA from the original DNA of the species. None of DNA was modified or added to. Scientists have been working on this for a long time. Here is a list of sites I keep in a file.
Some sites refuting big bang evolution
Five Atheist Miracles
http://creation.com/five-atheist-miracles
Evidence for Creation
http://www.icr.org/evidence/
http://creation.com/archaeology-supports-bible
Layers in canyon supporting flood
https://creation.com/surprise-canyon
OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts)
http://s8int.com
Hidden treasures in junk DNA - not useless after all
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/
Big Bang Busted by 33 Top Scientists
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Additional Scientists Sign Up
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401081546/http://cosmologystatement.org/
Genetic study reveals 90% of animals appeared at the same time
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
Things found in coal etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/artifacts/bell/
http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=stuff_in_coal
-
1
- Show all
Do hominids as a species evolve?
Yes, from chipping a stone into a tire to using rubber and steel, we have evolved tremendously throughout history. Not only can we start a fire today, but we can control it within a furnace, oven, and other natural gas devices. We went from wearing animal hide to growing cotton and now use unnatural materials for clothing. The list is endless on how we have evolved.
Have hominids adapted as a species?
We no longer live in caves and eat certain raw foods that are full of parasites, we live in hand built homes and eat food that have been cooked to kill the parasites. We went from a rotary telephone to now we have little personal computers called mobile devices (cell phones). We have well advanced ourselves throughout history.
Can natural selection=inherited traits be found within the hominid as a species?
According to DNA, everyone hominid alive today shares 99.3% genetics. A simple .07% separates us from actually being the same person. The genomes alone are basically the same within all humans. Technically, we are committing incest each time we are intimate with our spouses. It's the .07% that keeps our offspring from being lunatics.
So, what does it mean that we evolve, we adapt, and we posses natural selection=inherited traits through our genetics as hominid species?
It means: God designed us to be family. And it is a complete tragedy that we do not exist like our neighbor is are brother/sister. Even though science uses terms not found within the Bible, we know from the Bible that LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. And DNA proves life is in the BLOOD. Just like our ETERNAL LIFE is through the BLOOD of Christ!!
Now, I am positive we did not begin as plant life that became a fish, then became an amphibian on land, and then into the monkey phase before finally settling on human, until we want to be something else.
But, as a species, the humans (hominids) have evolved, adapted, and do posses natural selection via inherited traits. That CANNOT BE DENIED!!
Yes, from chipping a stone into a tire to using rubber and steel, we have evolved tremendously throughout history. Not only can we start a fire today, but we can control it within a furnace, oven, and other natural gas devices. We went from wearing animal hide to growing cotton and now use unnatural materials for clothing. The list is endless on how we have evolved.
Have hominids adapted as a species?
We no longer live in caves and eat certain raw foods that are full of parasites, we live in hand built homes and eat food that have been cooked to kill the parasites. We went from a rotary telephone to now we have little personal computers called mobile devices (cell phones). We have well advanced ourselves throughout history.
Can natural selection=inherited traits be found within the hominid as a species?
According to DNA, everyone hominid alive today shares 99.3% genetics. A simple .07% separates us from actually being the same person. The genomes alone are basically the same within all humans. Technically, we are committing incest each time we are intimate with our spouses. It's the .07% that keeps our offspring from being lunatics.
So, what does it mean that we evolve, we adapt, and we posses natural selection=inherited traits through our genetics as hominid species?
It means: God designed us to be family. And it is a complete tragedy that we do not exist like our neighbor is are brother/sister. Even though science uses terms not found within the Bible, we know from the Bible that LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. And DNA proves life is in the BLOOD. Just like our ETERNAL LIFE is through the BLOOD of Christ!!
Now, I am positive we did not begin as plant life that became a fish, then became an amphibian on land, and then into the monkey phase before finally settling on human, until we want to be something else.
But, as a species, the humans (hominids) have evolved, adapted, and do posses natural selection via inherited traits. That CANNOT BE DENIED!!
This list of sources is really terrible. Its inconsistent.
One link denies the other.
icr, 6000years, genesispark, cration.com etc are not scientific at all, there is no more biased organisation than these. They have a very clear agenda and try to push it. The agenda is that the universe is 6000 years old and Genesis must be read literally.
The petition against the Big Bang theory some 40 "top" (actually uknown) scientists posted on internet, says that the BB theory is too complex and propose that the universe is eternal, had no beginning or end.
rense.com seems like some kind of conspiracy webpage, not sure how to call it.
scientificamerican - ok, so "junk DNA" is not so "junk". Thats all. Sorry, Bing Bang still stands and evolution too.
techtimes (Genetic study reveals 90% of animals appeared at the same time) - https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/...es-appear-about-the-same-time-as-human-beings
One link denies the other.
icr, 6000years, genesispark, cration.com etc are not scientific at all, there is no more biased organisation than these. They have a very clear agenda and try to push it. The agenda is that the universe is 6000 years old and Genesis must be read literally.
The petition against the Big Bang theory some 40 "top" (actually uknown) scientists posted on internet, says that the BB theory is too complex and propose that the universe is eternal, had no beginning or end.
rense.com seems like some kind of conspiracy webpage, not sure how to call it.
scientificamerican - ok, so "junk DNA" is not so "junk". Thats all. Sorry, Bing Bang still stands and evolution too.
techtimes (Genetic study reveals 90% of animals appeared at the same time) - https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/...es-appear-about-the-same-time-as-human-beings
U
Experiments are done in a lab, have you seen one? There are all kinds ones for chemists, chemical engineers, mechnical engineers, neuroscientists, medical doctors etc., etc.,
Yup, scientific theory is as broad as you want make it.
Yet no reputable medical doctor who wants to keep his/her license administers medication unless it has been through clinical trials, I wonder why that is after all we could just rely on theory and speculation that it won't kill you with the first dose or that it actually does what we hope it will do.
I have already by Paul's words shown that death came to all living things.
I do not remember Paul saying the rule of thumb if I say it three times then it is truth.
Your thesis that death only affected Adam/Eve is refuted.
Yup, scientific theory is as broad as you want make it.
Yet no reputable medical doctor who wants to keep his/her license administers medication unless it has been through clinical trials, I wonder why that is after all we could just rely on theory and speculation that it won't kill you with the first dose or that it actually does what we hope it will do.
I have already by Paul's words shown that death came to all living things.
I do not remember Paul saying the rule of thumb if I say it three times then it is truth.
Your thesis that death only affected Adam/Eve is refuted.
-
1
- Show all
What you ignore is science has seen absolutely no macro evolution only micro evolution within the species. In fact there is the Cambrian explosion of species without any species going from one to another species. All of a sudden the thousands of species just sprung into existence. Creation anybody?
-
1
- Show all
You are looking at DNA losing information to create different charisterics in a species. In dogs for example breeds with droopy ears has lost the DNA for cartelege in the ears. As a result these breeds are prone to ear infections. Always always information has been lost to create different breeds in a species.
The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
accounting for the known facts.”
To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”
Evolution has been neither. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence
with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, but remain unable to do so.
Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming
from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps,
come into existence from some previously existing creatures.
For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many
intermediate steps, became a mammal of today. Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became
amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many
millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.
Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation.
Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes
into some other species.
Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again,
it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.
-
“No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth,
we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major
groups or phyla.”
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
accounting for the known facts.”
To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”
Evolution has been neither. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence
with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, but remain unable to do so.
Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming
from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps,
come into existence from some previously existing creatures.
For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many
intermediate steps, became a mammal of today. Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became
amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many
millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.
Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation.
Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes
into some other species.
Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again,
it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.
-
“No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth,
we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major
groups or phyla.”
-
2
- Show all
that life can come only from life
The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary
concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin. However, the idea of
spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.
“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved
conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for
microscopic forms of life as well!
“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been
able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence
from the not-living!
Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy.
Jesus Christ made it clear that we can be set free from the lies of this world. Seeking
real truth is the only way to obtain freedom from ignorance. As Christ said in John 8:32,
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary
concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin. However, the idea of
spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.
“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved
conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for
microscopic forms of life as well!
“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been
able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence
from the not-living!
Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy.
Jesus Christ made it clear that we can be set free from the lies of this world. Seeking
real truth is the only way to obtain freedom from ignorance. As Christ said in John 8:32,
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Darwin used the Haeckel lie.
Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly
included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man.
This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s.
Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise,
chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in
the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.
The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked.
-
Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s
embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings
were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.”
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick
of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are
“not in accordance with the facts of development.”
Scientists continue to find fault with the “evolutionary evidence” created by Haeckel.
In 1977, “Erich Blechschmidt noted: ‘The early stages of human embryonic development are
distinct from the early development of other species.’ And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported
that frogs, chicks, and mice ‘are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size,
fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements’” (Wells, op. cit.).
Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin
called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel “the strongest single class of facts”
for evolution. The father of the “theory” of evolution used evidence from science literature
already known to be false.
There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s which disproved
the drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud.
Yet he included Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution,
but also called them “the strongest single class of facts.”
Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly
included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man.
This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s.
Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise,
chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in
the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.
The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked.
-
Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s
embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings
were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.”
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick
of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are
“not in accordance with the facts of development.”
Scientists continue to find fault with the “evolutionary evidence” created by Haeckel.
In 1977, “Erich Blechschmidt noted: ‘The early stages of human embryonic development are
distinct from the early development of other species.’ And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported
that frogs, chicks, and mice ‘are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size,
fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements’” (Wells, op. cit.).
Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin
called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel “the strongest single class of facts”
for evolution. The father of the “theory” of evolution used evidence from science literature
already known to be false.
There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s which disproved
the drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud.
Yet he included Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution,
but also called them “the strongest single class of facts.”
-
2
- Show all