theistic evolution - don't try this at home
- Thread starter WIJeff
- 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.
u nailed it.
u cant mix science falsely so called with the truths of the Bible.
u cant mix evolution and creation.
oil and water bro.
stop believing all those nerd scientists. they've been proven wrong so many times in history. atleast the bible stays the same (unless u read the new versions that have removed verses)
u cant mix science falsely so called with the truths of the Bible.
u cant mix evolution and creation.
oil and water bro.
stop believing all those nerd scientists. they've been proven wrong so many times in history. atleast the bible stays the same (unless u read the new versions that have removed verses)
I had looked at the video and stopped from watching the whole thing for this reason below about vestigial organs.
I gave you one example of how what appears to be a vestigial organ and it wasn't. There are other examples you can peruse at that site, brother.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/human-tailbone-evidence-of-evolution/
Dung is still dung, no matter how you sling it, brother. I believe the words of Jesus Christ validating the first marriage and thus the creation of Adam and Eve. I reckon only the Lord can reveal to you what is dung in that false science.
When science gets grants better from the government towards proving the evolution theory, then they lie for their career.
Not all science is geared towards getting grants catering to the evolution theory, but it does happen.
What is the problem when they say both gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution is true when rapid macroevolution was only proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true? There is no discipline in that theoritical field of science to get the "facts" straight.
The problem is you cannot take stock in what Jesus says about scripture.
John 10:[SUP]34 [/SUP]Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[SUP] 35 [/SUP]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[SUP]36 [/SUP]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Matthew 19:[SUP]4 [/SUP]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[SUP] 5 [/SUP]And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[SUP]6 [/SUP]Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Not all scientists are liars; just the evolutionist ones, because I believe in Jesus's words which makes their science a false science. Period.
I gave you one example of how what appears to be a vestigial organ and it wasn't. There are other examples you can peruse at that site, brother.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/human-tailbone-evidence-of-evolution/
Dung is still dung, no matter how you sling it, brother. I believe the words of Jesus Christ validating the first marriage and thus the creation of Adam and Eve. I reckon only the Lord can reveal to you what is dung in that false science.
When science gets grants better from the government towards proving the evolution theory, then they lie for their career.
Not all science is geared towards getting grants catering to the evolution theory, but it does happen.
What is the problem when they say both gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution is true when rapid macroevolution was only proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true? There is no discipline in that theoritical field of science to get the "facts" straight.
The problem is you cannot take stock in what Jesus says about scripture.
John 10:[SUP]34 [/SUP]Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[SUP] 35 [/SUP]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[SUP]36 [/SUP]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Matthew 19:[SUP]4 [/SUP]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[SUP] 5 [/SUP]And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[SUP]6 [/SUP]Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Not all scientists are liars; just the evolutionist ones, because I believe in Jesus's words which makes their science a false science. Period.
I do not understand that strange language of the verse, so I will use NIV, if you do not mind:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
I have no problem with humans being male and female and created by God. Everything is created by God.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
I have no problem with humans being male and female and created by God. Everything is created by God.
Keep reading your preferred Bible version, but Jesus pointed to one man and one woman that was created from which the first marriage came from.
That first marriage signify one male and one female from which all the human race came from.
Just as all the human race came from the only eight survivors of that world wide flood.
That first marriage signify one male and one female from which all the human race came from.
Just as all the human race came from the only eight survivors of that world wide flood.
But that is what macroevolution is about; jumps.
They coined the phrase microevolution, stealing it from the law of BioGenesis so that now the Law of Biogenesis only means life did not come from nothing, and many evolutionists today believes that is all that law says, but there was more to it as in life begets similar life...life comes from similar life.
Microevolution is what we see in the Law of Biogenesis, and so they use that term to make macroevolution believable.
The going trend in the evolution theory now is that gradual evolution cannot be true because of the huge gap in the fossil records of transitional fossils as Stephen jay Gould and other leading evolutionary scientists agree from which is why Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution was postulated to explain that huge gap. Gould and another evolutionist noted an explosion in the fossil record that had occurred ( as they assume ) back in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian period. Gould goes on to explain that the only way for that to tap that capacity was a global flood. ( They are right; but they are really talking about Noah's flood as they cannot confirm that was when the explosion in the fossil record had happened being assumed as in the Cambrian or the Pre Cambrian period. )
So evolution is really about proving simple life becomes more complex as time goes on from which "jumps" in the species to another kind of life occurs where it cannot reproduce with its former kind.
A cow is still a cow if it becomes another species of a cow just as a rose by any other name is still a rose. That is the Law of Biogenesis. Microevolution is just a deceptive term to make macroevolution look possible when it goes against that Law.
But you may not believe me if you believe that lie about the Law of Biogenesis as just meaning life did not come from nothing, but I had remember that definition of that law back in the 1980's in high school.
If you do a search online, you will find that some sites of dictionaries and colleges will keep the definition of microevolution as separate from macroevolution, but some will blur the definitions together, and you may find a site that says they are one and the same.
So ask an evolutionist if evolution is really about small changes, because at its heart, it is about big changes.
https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
Actually, it is the best example of jumps and why all of this can only exists in the imaginations.
They coined the phrase microevolution, stealing it from the law of BioGenesis so that now the Law of Biogenesis only means life did not come from nothing, and many evolutionists today believes that is all that law says, but there was more to it as in life begets similar life...life comes from similar life.
Microevolution is what we see in the Law of Biogenesis, and so they use that term to make macroevolution believable.
The going trend in the evolution theory now is that gradual evolution cannot be true because of the huge gap in the fossil records of transitional fossils as Stephen jay Gould and other leading evolutionary scientists agree from which is why Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution was postulated to explain that huge gap. Gould and another evolutionist noted an explosion in the fossil record that had occurred ( as they assume ) back in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian period. Gould goes on to explain that the only way for that to tap that capacity was a global flood. ( They are right; but they are really talking about Noah's flood as they cannot confirm that was when the explosion in the fossil record had happened being assumed as in the Cambrian or the Pre Cambrian period. )
So evolution is really about proving simple life becomes more complex as time goes on from which "jumps" in the species to another kind of life occurs where it cannot reproduce with its former kind.
A cow is still a cow if it becomes another species of a cow just as a rose by any other name is still a rose. That is the Law of Biogenesis. Microevolution is just a deceptive term to make macroevolution look possible when it goes against that Law.
But you may not believe me if you believe that lie about the Law of Biogenesis as just meaning life did not come from nothing, but I had remember that definition of that law back in the 1980's in high school.
If you do a search online, you will find that some sites of dictionaries and colleges will keep the definition of microevolution as separate from macroevolution, but some will blur the definitions together, and you may find a site that says they are one and the same.
So ask an evolutionist if evolution is really about small changes, because at its heart, it is about big changes.
https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
Actually, it is the best example of jumps and why all of this can only exists in the imaginations.
You probably do not understand the theory of evolution.
So called "macroevolution" does not happen instantly, in jumps like dog having a cat baby.
Its such accumulation of small changes (microevolution) that the creature can no longer multiply with the "starting" creature or is significantly different.
---
BTW where is it written that everything multiplies after its kind? I could not find it.
So called "macroevolution" does not happen instantly, in jumps like dog having a cat baby.
Its such accumulation of small changes (microevolution) that the creature can no longer multiply with the "starting" creature or is significantly different.
---
BTW where is it written that everything multiplies after its kind? I could not find it.
You can find it by how God created them to continue.
Genesis 1:[SUP]24 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.[SUP] 25 [/SUP]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. KJV
Same for the plants on day 3 and the living things in the sea and the fowls of the air on day 5.
Genesis 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]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.[SUP]12 [/SUP]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.
Genesis 1:[SUP]20 [/SUP]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.[SUP]21 [/SUP]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. [SUP]22 [/SUP]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So it is by HOW God had created the plants and the living things to continue as in multiply after their own kind that reproves the evolution theory for what it is really about and that is macroevolution; becoming something else other than what God has created it to be and to continue as by His word.
There can be a variety of dogs but still a dog. There can be a variety of cows, but no amount of standing in ocean waters is going to prompt that cow to change or add to its DNA structure the extra genetic information to start changing itself even slowly to gradually become a whale.
Fishes will not start to grow legs when it never had the genetic information to go in that direction. If energy cannot come out of nowhere and life cannot come from nothing, then that extra genetic information is not going to come out of nowhere that starts changing a simpler life into a more complex life. That is how the laws of science disproves the evolution theory.
But one should not even have to go there when you believe in His words in HOW God created living things to continue after its own kind.
Mankind always wanted to fly at one point or another. There is no genetic information in our DNA for any prompting by external factors to activate a lab in our DNA to start creating genetic information to add to our DNA so we can grow wings.
Notice how interbreeding species can limit the continuation of the result that it cannot reproduce as that new specie? Like mixing a lion with a tiger, getting a male and female but they cannot reproduce after that? Or a horse with a donkey and you get a mule but they cannot reproduce after that? As hard as interbreeding species is, look at how hard it would be for something new to be created out of that species and to have the other necessary replicated specie to reproduce with.
It's not ever going to happen.
The connection evolutionists makes with the fossil records are all assumptions, but it is amazing how many fossilized living things can be found today, and yet because of its size, it is deemed by evolutionary scientists as not the same thing but yet by its DNA, it is.
Genesis 1:[SUP]24 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.[SUP] 25 [/SUP]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. KJV
Same for the plants on day 3 and the living things in the sea and the fowls of the air on day 5.
Genesis 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]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.[SUP]12 [/SUP]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.
Genesis 1:[SUP]20 [/SUP]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.[SUP]21 [/SUP]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. [SUP]22 [/SUP]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So it is by HOW God had created the plants and the living things to continue as in multiply after their own kind that reproves the evolution theory for what it is really about and that is macroevolution; becoming something else other than what God has created it to be and to continue as by His word.
There can be a variety of dogs but still a dog. There can be a variety of cows, but no amount of standing in ocean waters is going to prompt that cow to change or add to its DNA structure the extra genetic information to start changing itself even slowly to gradually become a whale.
Fishes will not start to grow legs when it never had the genetic information to go in that direction. If energy cannot come out of nowhere and life cannot come from nothing, then that extra genetic information is not going to come out of nowhere that starts changing a simpler life into a more complex life. That is how the laws of science disproves the evolution theory.
But one should not even have to go there when you believe in His words in HOW God created living things to continue after its own kind.
Mankind always wanted to fly at one point or another. There is no genetic information in our DNA for any prompting by external factors to activate a lab in our DNA to start creating genetic information to add to our DNA so we can grow wings.
Notice how interbreeding species can limit the continuation of the result that it cannot reproduce as that new specie? Like mixing a lion with a tiger, getting a male and female but they cannot reproduce after that? Or a horse with a donkey and you get a mule but they cannot reproduce after that? As hard as interbreeding species is, look at how hard it would be for something new to be created out of that species and to have the other necessary replicated specie to reproduce with.
It's not ever going to happen.
The connection evolutionists makes with the fossil records are all assumptions, but it is amazing how many fossilized living things can be found today, and yet because of its size, it is deemed by evolutionary scientists as not the same thing but yet by its DNA, it is.
Tell that to various dogs breeds 
what i mean by evolution is macro evolution. this is how they play tricks on u
u ask for proof of evolution and they say look, a bird turned into a different looking bird.
but its still a bird.
so they give u evidence of adaptation (or micro evlution as they say) and use it to prove their theory of macro evolution of one kind to another kind.
which doesnt happen according to the bible and observable reality.
Evolution means change, accomodation.
Macroevolution is a buzz word of creationists. It only means that microevolution made so many steps that when you look back its already so significant, you can call it "macro".
Macroevolution is not that a dog will produce a bird, instantly.
Various breeds of dogs are evolution.
Macroevolution is a buzz word of creationists. It only means that microevolution made so many steps that when you look back its already so significant, you can call it "macro".
Macroevolution is not that a dog will produce a bird, instantly.
Various breeds of dogs are evolution.
All of nature is of applied sciences, we humans only study it and learned of it. like going to school to learn math from a teacher who knows it already who might have even created plastic bottles or automobiles as a designer of objects through sciences.
learning about Nature is the same thing except the teacher is God who designed the sciences of nature and created the objects in the universe.
learning about Nature is the same thing except the teacher is God who designed the sciences of nature and created the objects in the universe.