Is God a liar?

[Hieronymus]

1. I switched from Creationism to Evolutionism LONG before I became Catholic, way back when I was Evangelical, because the FACTS supported it.

Lie.
Even famous atheist are not that adamant.
You didn't watch the documentary either, did you?
You have made your choice.

2. I can't believe you think the Piltdown Man disproves Evolution. The fraud of the Piltdown Man BOLSTERS Evolution/Science. Why? Because Science worked: it found the fraud and debunked it. And that SAME SCIENCE proves Evolution.

You believe God is a liar.
Fine. You're free to choose any fable you like.

 

[Hieronymus]

Funny, I am none of those things, and yet I have said it. Guess you're wrong.

Guess again.

 

[Hieronymus]

amen!

Blind faith evolutionism proclaims "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long enough and talented enough period of time filled with just-so stories that are easy enough to tell".

They have no idea as to who wrote the data that makes up any organism.
They believe a book can rewrite itself into another story by sloppy copying.
They're crazy.

I prefer the Bible over such junk-science false-religion.

I prefer REAL science over pseudo-science.
There is no reason to assume the Bible is not true, there are increasingly more reasons to believe it is.
And guess what, it is written that man has no excuse to doubt creation.
But that must be another lie then...

 

[Revealing Times]

Indeed observing them over 50,000 generation has proven the point beyond question.

But we can't observe anything over 50,000 generations. No animal has ever changed Kinds, they can adapt, but there is zero proof of evolution from one kind to another. Darwin's finches are still finches.

Context determines the meaning "six DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made" - is a literal day context.

to eisegete alternate definitions into the text just for the sake of "preference" is extreme eisgesis.

But, isn't that what I said, it isn't always a day, meaning sometime it is. I do not think it is here, the earth was not around until 4.5 Billion years B.C., so why would the very first "day" of creation, be based off an earth rotation ?

Even if that were true: "And it was evening, and it was morning..."

Hello Brother, I put a lot of thought into this, and research, for God's edification. WATCH THIS.....The evening ends a day, and the morning brings forth a day or new beginning. Why was the evening first ? If I have been asked that once, I have been asked that 1000 times. But according to the WMAP/NASA mapping, the first Stars came about at 400 Million years, so it was Dark first, then came the light. Hence there was Dark on the face of the Deep, God is 1000 percent right, as always. Amen. Google WMAP/NASA and then hit images, you will see a picture mapped out by microwaves of the universe from the beginning of time. The Dark Ages lasted 400 Million years, then the First Stars started forming. Glory to God.

Also see, God says let there be light, and the evening (Dark Ages) and the Morning (Light/Stars) were the first day, and God saw the light that it was Good, and God divided the light from the day....there is still a gulf of Darkness between the Stars and the Inflation that started the Universe, Quantum Fluctuations as it is called, better known as God to us in the know. Amen. Ever wonder why God repeated Himself ?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights (FOURTH DAY) in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (This is the Creation of the seasons, not God creating Lights twice, Our Star (sun) and the earth formed our seasons. God did not repeat the light creation twice, that never made sense, now we understand the first creation of light is the very first stars created, which makes perfect sense. Earth did not come about until 9 million years after the Universe first came into existence. The fourth Day's/Lights was the Earth/Moon/Sun starting to interact in a seasonal manner. God would not have created light twice....Unless....... the first Day was the 400 Million years of Darkness followed by Stars being created by the trillions, for 9 billion years, until the earth came into existence. Then God created a light for earth so to speak.

You end the first day with "..That was the first day. It lasted 9.2 Billion years, give or take a few million years....LOL."

indeed -- laughable just as you point out.

I am edifying God, we just don't understand God in full. It is not funny to me, the give or take a million years is. We think inside a box too much.

There are a plethora of links. Tell me if Homo Habilus is a man or an ape.

Man was Created 6000 years ago, by God, anything created before God placed His Spirit in Human Beings is just an animal. Not anything created in the "Image" of God. Is there anyway you can tell if these supposed "Humans" had Gods Spirit in them ? No, so we must just believe the genealogy given us by God the Father in His Holy Book. Also, why is the history of "Recorded man" basically 6000 years ? Because that was when man received the Breath of God.

God Bless....

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution can be tested as follows:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true therefore we should expect to find gradual changes in the fossil record
Test: Look for fossils in different strata of rock and see if there is change from level to level
.

A. Othaniel Marsh tried that nonsense with the horse - came up with a wonderful step by step sequence all the way to modern horse. Then in the 1950's it was shown to be a pure fraud - hoax. Contrived evolutionist story telling - lamented even by their own atheist high-priests of blind faith evolutionism. It is a perfect example of story-telling - and a sequence that 'never happened in nature' -- thought it is still on display in the Smithsonian over 60 years after being confirmed as fraud-- due to the story-telling "effect" of the contrived sequence.

B. "Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" is the sort of thing being done with the fossil record.

=====================================

As for Colin Patterson - I have always referred to him as a blind faith atheist evolutionist - a diehard evolutionist scientist -- never as anything else ---

"details matter". He laments the religion he is stuck with.

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
...
You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

In your response we can see that you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd detail that you in fact never identify.

What does atheism have to do with whether a scientific theory is valid?

outside of junk-science? nothing. Take for example atheists in Math, chemistry, physics, observable dendrology etc. The fact that they do not inject their religion into those sciences means we will never see scientists in those fields offering this lament -

=============

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
=======================================


That is not the sort of lament we have in "real science" over the past 150 years.

Neither is this --


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

========================================

 

[Abraxos]

Monkey thinking would have it either way. But then monkeys are not the most brilliant of scientists.

Doesn't help when birds are found in dinosaur bellies. Apparently dinosaurs like kentukey fried chicken.

 

[BobRyan]

I am a Christian that chooses to "Believe the Bible" rather than "deny the Bible" placing the junk-science-religion of evolutionism ahead of the Bible.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================
Bible-deniers tend to also be science-deniers when speaking of those who cling to blind-faith evolutionism while attacking the Word of God and denying observations in science.

So - please be serious about what evolutionists are "believing" for just a second.

Shall we explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Shall we explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

shall we explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

shall we observe that "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

shall we observe that "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

shall we observe that "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

shall we observe that "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

shall we observe that this is the sort of junk-religion that is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

 

[BobRyan]

1. I switched from Creationism to Evolutionism LONG before I became Catholic, way back when I was Evangelical, because the FACTS supported it.

2. I can't believe you think the Piltdown Man disproves Evolution. The fraud of the Piltdown Man BOLSTERS Evolution/Science. .

Hmm - the 50 year fraud of Piltdown and the 100 plus year fraud of Othaniel Marsh's horse series - all "bolstering" blind faith evolutionism. I don't doubt that.

hmmm - you say you switched from being creationist to be a believer in evolutionism - and the continued that thinking - to switch from being evangelical to then being catholic. I don't doubt that either.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe in Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution? After all, the only difference between micro-Evolution and macro-Evolution is time.

Not true in real life.

In Micro evolution - the bacteria "eat something new for breakfast" - but they do not turn into eukaryotes. So then micro evolution "change" - but not "macro evolution" ever.

Indeed observing them over 50,000 generation has proven the point beyond question.

All it takes is the right mutations and symbiosis (specifically endosymbiosis), which happen and DID happen given enough TIME

That demonstrates a logical fallacy - you just 'assumed the salient point' of evolutionism -- instead of proving it.

Were we simply 'not supposed to notice" that after 50,000 generations your bacteria experiment did not turn into eukaryotes even though in ONE TENTH of that number of generations - supposedly -- ALL of humanity "evolved"!!

Please be serious!

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe in Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution? After all, the only difference between micro-Evolution and macro-Evolution is time.

Not true in real life.

In Micro evolution - the bacteria "eat something new for breakfast" - but they do not turn into eukaryotes. So then micro evolution "change" - but not "macro evolution" ever.

Indeed observing them over 50,000 generation has proven the point beyond question.

But we can't observe anything over 50,000 generations.

Turns out your statement is not true.

Many evolutionists love to imagine that case - because not being able to test/witness/observe-in-nature whether evolutionism's blind faith doctrines would actually pan out - over 50,000 means an endless story-telling game.

It would mean that evolutionists could keep "claiming" that the reason we don't see change at the macro level that blind faith evolutionism claims we would see if only we could observe 50,000 generations of evolution.

And yet presto! here we have literal observation of 50,000 generations of the most adaptable phyla on the planet - bacteria. They wear their genetic code "on their sleeves" so to speak and are "designed" to adapt genetically to their environment far above and beyond that of any eukaryote animal. Yet EVEN THEY don't change at the macro level from bacteria to single celled eukaryote!

Yet ALL MANKIND supposedly evolved in ONE TENTH that number of generations!!

No animal has ever changed Kinds, they can adapt, but there is zero proof of evolution from one kind to another. Darwin's finches are still finches.

Certainly that is true.

 

[BobRyan]

"yom" is a period of time, not always a day.

Context determines the meaning "six DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made" - is a literal day context.

to eisegete alternate definitions into the text just for the sake of "preference" is extreme eisgesis.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

But, isn't that what I said, it isn't always a day, meaning sometime it is. I do not think it is here, the earth was not around until 4.5 Billion years B.C., so why would the very first "day" of creation, be based off an earth rotation ?

Moses does not make that argument in Genesis 1 nor does God argue that when He speaks in Exodus 20.

Context determines the meaning "six DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made" Ex 20:8-11 - is a literal day context.

That is "legal code" is is literal - it is the same command - the same word - the same meaning and it is obvious even to atheists as James Barr points out - that this is a 7 day week.

Hello Brother, I put a lot of thought into this, and research, for God's edification. WATCH THIS.....The evening ends a day, and the morning brings forth a day or new beginning. Why was the evening first ? If I have been asked that once, I have been asked that 1000 times.

But the gyrations in your response do not fit God's summary of it where HE says it is the same as our 7 day week.

"six DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made" Ex 20:8-11

You are inserting preference into the text - that we both know neither Moses nor his readers would have inserted. That is eisegesis - it is not exegesis.

 

[Open Heart]

No animal has ever changed Kinds

See post 719

 

[Open Heart]

In your response we can see that you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd detail that you in fact never identify.

Still waiting for you to deal with the chart of transitional forms documenting the evolution of whales.

 

[Open Heart]

hmmm - you say you switched from being creationist to be a believer in evolutionism - and the continued that thinking - to switch from being evangelical to then being catholic. I don't doubt that either.

Like I said, I follow the evidence.

 

[Open Heart]

Were we simply 'not supposed to notice" that after 50,000 generations your bacteria experiment did not turn into eukaryotes

Yes they did.

 

[Open Heart]

Yet ALL MANKIND supposedly evolved in ONE TENTH that number of generations!!

Evolution is punctuated. It all depends on when mutations happen that are adaptive.

Still waiting for you to respond to the chart of transitional forms documenting the evolution of whales.

 

[Revealing Times]

I am a Christian that chooses to "Believe the Bible" rather than "deny the Bible" placing the junk-science-religion of evolutionism ahead of the Bible.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================
Bible-deniers tend to also be science-deniers when speaking of those who cling to blind-faith evolutionism while attacking the Word of God and denying observations in science.

So - please be serious about what evolutionists are "believing" for just a second.

Shall we explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Shall we explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

shall we explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

shall we observe that "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

shall we observe that "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

shall we observe that "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

shall we observe that "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

shall we observe that this is the sort of junk-religion that is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

It was one mans opinion, was it not ? The light from the stars could not be shinning on earth if we were created 6000 years ago. I don't even really give serious thought to a young earth.

 

[Revealing Times]

Evolution can be tested as follows:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true therefore we should expect to find gradual changes in the fossil record
Test: Look for fossils in different strata of rock and see if there is change from level to level
Record Results:

Reach conclusions: Evolution is true: whales evolved.

Nope, whales have not "evolved" we just have a case of naivete.

Whale evolution fraud
Another evolutionary icon bites the dust
http://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Museums and textbooks today claim that whale fossils provide the clearest proof of evolution—they have mostly dropped horse evolution because that story no longer withstands scrutiny.Dr Carl Werner, author of Evolution: the Grand Experiment, has checked out the claims, interviewing the researchers and others. He found that none of the fossils holds up as transitional to whales. His findings, published in a major 25-page Appendix to the new 2014 edition of his book, utterly destroy the whale evolution story. Here are some highlights.

Pakicetus

None of these fossils holds up as transitional to whales
We have already pointed out the extreme story-telling that occurred withPakicetus, involving Dr Philip Gingerich.3 An incomplete skull fossil was imagined to be that of a whale-like creature, displayed as an artist’s impression on the cover of the prestigious journal, Science, in 1983. Some years later the rest of Pakicetus was found, published in 2001, and it proved to be nothing like a whale. Contrary to what Dr Gingerich had imagined, there was no blowhole, there were no flippers (only hooves), and there was no whale neck (just a neck typical for land mammals). Even so, Dr Werner reveals that the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the falsely-reconstructed skull that shows a blowhole (see figure 1).

In a National Geographic documentary in 2009, Dr Gingerich still claimed that Pakicetus should be classed with whales, based on its ear-bone. However, the ear-bone is not like a whale, which has a finger-like projection (sigmoid process), but is plate-like, like the fossils of land animals known as artiodactyls.

The ‘walking whale’ is portrayed as an intermediate betweenPakicetus and Rodhocetus. Dr Hans Thewissen, former student of Dr Gingerich, said that there were eight characteristics that showed that Ambulocetus was a whale ancestor. We have also reported on Ambulocetus (figure 2),4but Dr Werner recorded on video Dr Thewissen admitting that a key evidence of whale ancestry, the sigmoid process of the ear-bone apparatus (again), was actually nothing like a whale ear bone. Also, the cheek bone, which Thewissen claimed is thin like a whale cheek bone, is actually not thin at all; a horse, for example, has a much thinner cheekbone than Ambulocetus (see figure 3).

Dr Werner says, ‘All eight characters he reported as whale features are disturbingly non-whale features.’
Furthermore, Dr Thewissen’s lab has supplied models of Ambulocetus to various museums that show a blowhole in the snout of the skull, but there is no fossil evidence of a blowhole. Dr Werner says, “All eight characters he reported as whale features are disturbingly non-whale features.”

Rodhocetus
Rodhocetus was claimed to be an aquatic animal that was developing front flippers and a whale-like tail with flukes (horizontal fins)—i.e. supposedly well on the way to becoming a whale. However, when Dr Werner pointed out to the paleontologist who discovered Rodhocetus, Dr Gingerich, that there was no fossil skeletal evidence for a tail or flippers, Dr Gingerich admitted that this was so. He also admitted that he now thought that the creature had neither of these critical whale features. We provided some of this information in Creation magazine in 2011.5 However, the tail and flippers are still displayed in many articles, and I expect that, like Haeckel’s artistic embryos,6will be for many years to come.

Without these three supposed transitional creatures, the story of whale evolution collapses. Another evolutionary icon bites the dust!

No one still buys these untruths do they ?

 

[Revealing Times]

You can't get around the fact that in GEnesis 1, the earth was made on day one, before the stars lit up. That's the reverse order that science states.

I just got around it in my large post on the Creation being 14.7 Billion years divided into 6 Days or "yom" (Periods of time) There was Inflation, followed by the Dark Ages, followed by Stars which came about 400 Million years later, hence the first day was EVENING (Darkness) and the Morning (Light) Thus the first day was the Creation of the Universe, up until the time the Earth came into being. Thus............Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.... The earth had no form, and was void Means What ? It means the earth was still only matter, traveling through space. Void means 1. completely empty, 2. completely empty space, so there was no earth in the beginning, only the matter that was to become the earth, was in existence, and GOD CREATED IT, and the earth was created, just not yet formed, it was void, and without form. God is 100 percent correct, always. The Darkness was on face of the deep is God speaking of the first 400 million years of the Dark Ages, followed by the stars being created. An Earth Day is never even used in the Creation account.

 

[Open Heart]

Pakicetus

None of these fossils holds up as transitional to whales

This transitional form was properly depicted in the chart I pasted. Yes, it is considered a transitional form because of its ear. Just because it doesn't have the entire ear of a whale doesn't mean it doesn't have a transitional ear. That's the whole point.