Split Thread: Evolution/creationism - split from conservapedia thread

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Van00uber

this is an alternative wiki for conservative christians, and a very entertaining site for intelectuals.

try searching for earth, T rex, big bang, and my favourite page evolution (see if you can spot hitler and stalin on that page)

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

Might I suggest you go over to the Science sub-forum and paste these comments there rather than derailing this thread?

And to the OP, read their article on Asia, it sounds hysterically like it was a 3rd grade Social Studies report.

"It's big, and has tigers and pandas and monkeys and elephants..."

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.

How odd.
There is a complete fossil record of:
1)Whales
2)Horses
3)Elephants
4)Hippos
etc etc etc
Perhaps you need to read actual science and not garbage?

Quote:

Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.

Strange. You seem completely unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Scientists do not make idiotic claims they can't back up. They like to have things like evidence.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Quote:

The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

Since that is not what evolution has ever claimed and that is not what is found in the fossil record are you sure you understand even the basics of evolution?
Perhaps you should read somethings from universities instead of garbage?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer.

If you want to keep believing this, then you'd better not look into the subject any further.

I'm sure you can handle that.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

That was a pretty good piece of satire, Maxtor. Sadly there are people who are so willfully ignorant and so desperate to cling to their delusions of invisible magical beings that they would actually believe what you said.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline.

So viruses don't evolve?

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless.

And we can draw conclusions about the designer, if there was one, for that very reason: If there was a designer, it either was lacking in imagination or resources. It uses the same designs over and over, with only slight variations. It bases all organisms on the same replication code rather than creating something unique for each one, or even for the species most likely to otherwise think it was unique or special in kind rather than degree. It continually re-uses poor design elements like the blind spot in mammalian eyes when it has already solved the problem in cephalapod eyes. Based on the designs, the most logical conclusion about the designer (if there was one)is that it was a commitee with a limited budget, diverse levels of competency, and no cohesive vision.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by paximperium

How odd.
There is a complete fossil record of:
1)Whales
2)Horses
3)Elephants
4)Hippos
etc etc etc
Perhaps you need to read actual science and not garbage?

There is not a complete fossil record of the animals that you listed. The existence of similar animals in the past doesnt prove that they are related.
It has not been shown that any of those animals were related to similar fossils.

Strange. You seem completely unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Scientists do not make idiotic claims they can't back up.

Actually they do.

They like to have things like evidence.

Them wanting evidence isnt a substitute for actually having it. This is why evolution is a theory.


Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Since that is not what evolution has ever claimed and that is not what is found in the fossil record are you sure you understand even the basics of evolution?
Perhaps you should read somethings from universities instead of garbage?

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

[I Am The Scum]

Random red and blue text? Hmmm... Where have I seen that before?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

Because you made a claim or at least supported one. Around here we talk about claims. (As long as they aren't off topic.)

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

So viruses don't evolve?

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

God bless you.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.

I did not insult you either.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).

But wait, the ToE is so much more.

Why do humans have a chromosome that looks like two chromosomes of the other apes spliced together?
Why do humans have one less set of chromosomes?
Call now and get a second one free fore just shipping and handling...

Quote:

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer.

Well this is R&P, so speculation of a creator and designer is acceptable.

Why is the design so poor?

Was the creator dumb?

Quote:

Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline.

I suppose that antibiotics resistance is just leprechauns and lollipops?

Quote:

NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.

Um, and Mt. Vesuvius can not be shown to be 30 million years old, it just looks like it is.

Quote:

Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie.

Oh you mean like resistance to pesticides, no one ever heard of that did they?

Quote:

Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.

Your ego seems to be obscuring your view, maybe you should actually read up on teh ToE so you can actually critique it rather than some straw version of it.

Evolution occurs when traits dominate in a species due to reproductive success.

No two members are exactly the same, except in clones.

Quote:

The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line.

Improved!

Sheesh are you in the wrong ball park, the ToE rewards reproductive success, improvement be darned.

Quote:

If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons.

Nope, nice strawman here is something to help you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=punctuated+equilibria

Quote:

Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried.

Except for when they aren't, sheesh.

Quote:

The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

Goddesses love you too!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

Because this is a community, not Yahoo buzz, come on join the crowd, learn to think and defend your ideas. We all pick apart each others ideas and psosts that is what the JREF does.

Learn why you think what you think, learn to explain what you think, learn to support what you think.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

There is not a complete fossil record of the animals that you listed. The existence of similar animals in the past doesnt prove that they are related.
It has not been shown that any of those animals were related to similar fossils.

Okay, so first you say there are not fossils that are "like giraffes" or "like whales", then you say that okay, so there are, but that doesn't mean anything because we have no way of knowing that they're related. Why did you bring up the lack of fossils if it doesn't matter?

Quote:

Actually they do.

Examples?

Quote:

Them wanting evidence isnt a substitute for actually having it. This is why evolution is a theory.

You mean like atomic theory, the unproven atheist myth that there are building blocks called atoms that can be split in bombs and power plants?

A "theory" in scientific jargon is something that explains the world around us. Something can very well be a theory and a proven fact simultaneously.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

And we can draw conclusions about the designer, if there was one, for that very reason: If there was a designer, it either was lacking in imagination or resources. It uses the same designs over and over, with only slight variations. It bases all organisms on the same replication code rather than creating something unique for each one, or even for the species most likely to otherwise think it was unique or special in kind rather than degree. It continually re-uses poor design elements like the blind spot in mammalian eyes when it has already solved the problem in cephalapod eyes. Based on the designs, the most logical conclusion about the designer (if there was one)is that it was a commitee with a limited budget, diverse levels of competency, and no cohesive vision.

Thank you for your response,
One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.
I'm not trying to prove God here but to convey that the Bible and God is consistent within itself. Even more is that even if evolution were true it wouldn't carry any more weight than the Grand Canyon obviously being several millions of years old. Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness. The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.

I don't think his intent was to challenge design, but merely to say that similarities in creatures, and a natural progression through the fossil record, sugggests natural evolution more than creation.

Quote:

The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.

I'm glad you realize this. An irritatingly high number of people do not seem to.

[NobbyNobbs]

Maxtor,

A piece of friendly advice to help you avoid putting your foot in your mouth:

Next time, before you say something similar to ''evolution is just a theory'', you should check on how scientists define 'theory'.

Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
The shape of the earth is a theory.
Radioactive decay is a theory.
Special relativity is a theory.

99.44% of all scientists would agree with each of those statements.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Just going to the the opening page of the the link, I found this gem:

Did you know?: The image on the Shroud of Turin was formed only after the bloodstains were made. This suggests the image is of the subsequent Resurrection. No wonder scientists have converted after studying the Shroud!

For starters, analysis of the pigments shows them to be just that: pigments - not blood. I'd really like know who the scientists were who converted after studying the Shroud. Apparently, whoever they were, they weren't conversant with carbon 14 dating, which shows the cloth of the Shroud to be of medieval manufacture.

I, being a right wing "fundamentalist" Christian cringe every time I hear fellow Christians touting the Shroud as being real. Its hard to imagine that many Biblically literate Christians buy into such a thing that is so contrary to Biblical scripture.

The shroud is a single piece of cloth head to toe that shows a bearded man with a couple of minor wounds.

John 20
6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Isaiah 50:6
I (Jesus) offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who plucked out my beard;

Isaiah 52:14
Just as there were many who were appalled at him(Jesus being tortured), his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums.

No, not really. It isn't the nature of this forum. In fact it's against the rules here.

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Thank you for your response,
One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.
I'm not trying to prove God here but to convey that the Bible and God is consistent within itself. Even more is that even if evolution were true it wouldn't carry any more weight than the Grand Canyon obviously being several millions of years old. Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness. The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.

So, really, please take this derail to another thread.

Quote:

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

Preaching is not discussion.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because you made a claim or at least supported one. Around here we talk about claims. (As long as they aren't off topic.)

Address the error of the claim if Im wrong, not me. Ad hominemism isn't necessary to the subject matter.
God bless you.

[carlitos]

(Regarding the Shroud of Turin)

Isaiah is the Old Testament, if memory serves. That couldn't be evidence for what happened to Jesus, because he wasn't born yet. Am I missing something?

ETA - seriously dude, if you want to talk about evolution, just search the Science threads. There is a lot there already.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I did not insult you either.

Thank you,
At the time that I read Tubbys post he was the only one that didn't address me personally as a means to discredit(IMHO).

""Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far ""

God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

Maxtor,

A piece of friendly advice to help you avoid putting your foot in your mouth:

Next time, before you say something similar to ''evolution is just a theory'', you should check on how scientists define 'theory'.

Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
The shape of the earth is a theory.
Radioactive decay is a theory.
Special relativity is a theory.

99.44% of all scientists would agree with each of those statements.

Yes, most scientists agree with those statements. Yet your list is only composed of things readily accepted. Your ability to provide such examples simply suggests that some theories are more accepted than others and that some can be accepted as fact in the absence of absolute scientific proof.
Nonetheless, my statement was simply to point out that evolution wasn't proven out and not to suggest that since something was a theory that it couldn't be true.
God bless you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

God bless you.

And living entities only evolve into other living entities.



May the IPU (blessed be Her name) bring you wisdom.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness.

I personally don't see the usefulness of God's making the universe appear older, but that's just me and besides, it doesn't bother me at all. The part that does confuse me to the point of being vexed is the claim often made by fundamentalists that the entire world's population of animals narrowed down to just a few specimens per species (or kinds). Why is there no genetic bottle neck in humans or cats or dogs or any of the hundreds of species studied on a genetic level? Not even Christian scientists can find such a genetic bottleneck - surely they know that if they were to document such a finding hundreds of millions of people would start worshipping the God of Abraham.

Why would God feel the need to deceive 21st century scientists by messing the with genetic history of all the animals born in the past 5000 years?

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by carlitos

(Regarding the Shroud of Turin)

Isaiah is the Old Testament, if memory serves. That couldn't be evidence for what happened to Jesus, because he wasn't born yet. Am I missing something?

Thank you for your interest,
Although the Bible can be divided into two parts, Old and New Testaments they are also in agreement and are predicated on one another.
Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe per scripture. The OT is full of prophesies from Gods prophets and quotations of Jesus through the prophets in the OT.
Again, Im not trying to prove the Bible true here but to say that it is consistent with itself.

Here is but one scripture that says that Jesus was never made, created or came into being.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word(Jesus), and the Word(Jesus) was with God, and the Word(Jesus) was God. 2He(Jesus) was with God in the beginning.
3Through him(Jesus) all things were made; without him(Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4In him(Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
10He(Jesus) was in the world, and though the world was made through him(Jesus), the world did not recognize him(Jesus). 11He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him(Jesus), to those who believed in his(Jesus) name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word(Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

God bless you.

[carlitos]

I could see you sticking the word "Jesus" here and there into New Testament scriptures, but shoehorning him into the Old Testament bits is a little presumptuous of you. We had another guy that did that, and he had to brutalize the original language to make the translations fit to Jesus.

But, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

No, not really. It isn't the nature of this forum. In fact it's against the rules here.

Your statement is predicated on the assumption that I derailed the thread to an extent that it violated the forum rules.
You seem to be quite zealous for the integrity and steadfastness of these forms. I'm assuming that I could rummage around and see other posters trespasses and 'derailments' and your subsequent admonitions to them to refrain from doing such things, including those whom you agree with.
Or it could be that you simply made a convenient and disingenuous referral to the forum rules because you didn't like me or my agenda? I guess the answer to that question would be born out in your consistency/inconsistency of you sheriffing the threads here.




So, really, please take this derail to another thread.

Ironically, your pursuit of this tangent is a 'derailment' in itself.


Preaching is not discussion.

Preaching would be to tell people of the Gospel and salvation of Jesus Christ through faith.
My citations of scripture to reply to questions and challenges to religious, Christian and doctrinal issues is reasonable and usual in forums labeled such as "Religion and Philosophy".

God bless you.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Why is the design so poor?

Was the creator dumb?

All of these can be adequately explained by the committee process used.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I personally don't see the usefulness of God's making the universe appear older, but that's just me and besides, it doesn't bother me at all.

Thank you for your response,
The Bible doesnt explain any issue or process concerning the reasons or dynamic of agedness. Although, God per scripture makes things seem and appear in ways that hide Him and His course of His creation to those that oppose Him. Artificial agedness of the earth is consistent with that.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.



The part that does confuse me to the point of being vexed is the claim often made by fundamentalists that the entire world's population of animals narrowed down to just a few specimens per species (or kinds). Why is there no genetic bottle neck in humans or cats or dogs or any of the hundreds of species studied on a genetic level? Not even Christian scientists can find such a genetic bottleneck - surely they know that if they were to document such a finding hundreds of millions of people would start worshipping the God of Abraham.

If one entertains the possibility that there is in fact a God its reasonable to also assume that such a God isnt subject to the rudimentary elements and limitations of the very world that He created.
One can assume that God isnt real and any literature relating to him is also not real. But one cant assume that He exists and then put limitations on this same God that can do anything according to His nature and plan.
A better question on your part would have been the Adam and Eve DNA issue.
Its unlikely that if there were a God that could create two people from nothing that he wouldnt have a problem with DNA issues.



Why would God feel the need to deceive 21st century scientists by messing the with genetic history of all the animals born in the past 5000 years?

1 Corinthians 1
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles(non jews),

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Thank you for your questions and God bless you.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I suppose that antibiotics resistance is just leprechauns and lollipops?

Oh you mean like resistance to pesticides, no one ever heard of that did they?

Max seems to think that evolution could be true only if frogs turned into cats or something like the crocoduck existed:

Quote:

Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums. I take it that you are a fan of evolution.
Nonetheless Conservapedia does have a varied content influenced by their authors biases. Yet much of it has merit.
In the same way Wikipedia has its own issues with atheists posing as Christians authoring skewed versions of content of their own.
Admittedly, they are a lot slicker than their counterparts over at Conservapedia.
God bless you.

Luke 16:8
And it is true that the children of this world(atheists) are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light(Christians).

Well it didn't take long for you assert your superiority over atheists.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I could see you sticking the word "Jesus" here and there into New Testament scriptures, but shoehorning him into the Old Testament bits is a little presumptuous of you. We had another guy that did that, and he had to brutalize the original language to make the translations fit to Jesus.

But, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

You are correct, The OT doesn't give the name of its prophesied Saviour.
One must also consider that if the OT prophesies a Saviour and that Saviour is Jesus and I believe in that Jesus and you do not because of perceived errors in scripture, the scriptures then fulfilled its duty in revealing the Christ to me and hiding Him from you. The Bible isnt made to prove itself out to those that oppose it but to convey the Word of God to His children.
God bless you.

Not wanting to argue. But just offering the Biblical perspective and answer.
I dont believe in Star Trek but its reasonable that I offer corrections to those that might say that Captain Kirk and Darth Vader were sisters.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Van00uber

Wow, I put this link up as a joke so that we could all laugh at it.

Maxtor, you have now become the joke in the thread, did god put dinosaur fossils on earth to test our faith? Haha

Actually, I was joke to this thread when I believed in Jesus Christ. I believe that God didn't use the presence of Dinosaur bones to test my faith as much as to let you believe what you wanted to believe.
I can believe in things unseen and things contrary to what my eyes and ears tell me. You cant apparently. Which is Gods desire.
God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Max seems to think that evolution could be true only if frogs turned into cats or something like the crocoduck existed:

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Maxtor View Post
I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums. I take it that you are a fan of evolution.
Nonetheless Conservapedia does have a varied content influenced by their authors biases. Yet much of it has merit.
In the same way Wikipedia has its own issues with atheists posing as Christians authoring skewed versions of content of their own.
Admittedly, they are a lot slicker than their counterparts over at Conservapedia.
God bless you.

Luke 16:8
And it is true that the children of this world(atheists) are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light(Christians).

Originally Posted by tsig

Well it didn't take long for you assert your superiority over atheists.

I dont understand your response. Its self evident that I said and cited scripture that says that atheists are more shrewd/wise in dealing with this world than Christians!

God bless you.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Maxtor

Actually, I was joke to this thread when I believed in Jesus Christ.

Wrong. Lots of people believe in Jesus Christ, and they certainly aren't jokes. Personally, I find your inserting words into scripture because you know what they mean a bit off-putting. The words are right there.

But, you wouldn't be the first Christian to post here that has some kind of persecution complex. I hope that's not it, and that you stick around; this place needs all the spiritual diversity it can get. Check out the quote / multiquote feature when you have a chance. You'll find that is better received than the blue / alternating font thing.

[Maxtor]

Well people, I'm disappointed with my experience here. I assumed that I would be having a constructive exchange of ideas and opinion. And Ive found much of nothing but mean spirited barbs at me personally.
Of course the mantra of these boards is going to be, "we run em off and blew him away".
Think what you will. One thing is for sure, I can talk the way I talk here to my friends, my God and even my mother and in any company in any context. Yet the abrasiveness consistently displayed here is turned on and off like a switch for many in this forum.
God bless you all.

2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Because no one like this has ever existed before, ever.