Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well once again you postulate the evidence. There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. No one has been able to observe evolution and no one has been able to reproduce it. The evidence is assumption and supposition.

And it contradicts the Bible. My faith is in God's words not man's hypothesis. I don't think I'm smarter than scientists. But God is. He is uniquely qualified to say how things came into being. Evolutionists have faith in an unprovable hypothesis. I have faith in God.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Exodus confirms the six day creation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You should trust the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, you are confused. I answered you in post #542, you asked who the "someone else" was that I was referring to. The answer is --------->"Collin Patterson", Bob keeps quoting Patterson. I don't quote Patterson. Bob doesn't answer my specific points, he obfuscates by discussing a missing link between one age of fossil to another. I'm simply talking about the fact the existence of the fossils in many ages, NOT a link!

So where exactly was I confused? All you said was yes I was confused as I assumed I was, but you never showed where my understanding of what you said was in error.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is but one answer to such talk by those who obviously have not seen nor heard from God and prefer the knowledge of men:

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:19-20

Here's something I have seen:

Part of a whale skeleton hanging on display. Vestigial hip bones.

God made that skeleton. Open your eyes!

 

[Kenny'sID]

You will need to do your own research and learn about fossils and the age of the earth. There are many books and free sites on the net.

Yep, as I mentioned just recently, that's always the way, go research for yourself and draw the same conclusion you/others do. Been there, yet I found nothing convincing, just claims, no real proof. Just hoped you could present something.

 

[Colter]

So where exactly was I confused? All you said was yes I was confused as I assumed I was, but you never showed where my understanding of what you said was in error.

The someone was Bobs reference, Collin Paterson.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is why they say that "the internet is where religions go to die."

No the internet just as the TV/radio before it, just speeds up the process of trying to murder the true gospel, something that will never happen in reality but it will die in the minds of many who are deceived. Satan...you, others working for him, will infiltrate the truth with lies... use their tricks of pretending to be of Christ while continually chipping away at the Bible as the truth, and yes, some will fall for it. However Gods word, just as God, doesn't change, only people do.

Then once you have the Bible whittled down to just about nothing and have helped God with the process of separating the firm believers from the not so firm believers, there will be no more sense to letting things continue. If things were allowed to continue, the Bible would be eventually whittled down to nothing, and not believed by anyone, defeating Gods whole purpose, no more point to it all and that's when things get interesting.

As I see it, he will return right about the time there becomes little or no point to it, and he will settle all this. Of course we all know the Bible predicts all that, and here it is happening and happening fast right under our nose. Gotta love iron clad "proof" straight from the word of God, the very word that's being disputed here. So, because the Bible has proved itself in that, and time and time again in other areas, think I'll stick with it, all of it, it's trustworthy, and just makes things so much more simple, something God is very good at...then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Hoghead1]

Over the centuries, there has been no question that the KJV is an extremely accurate retelling of the Scriptures; as accurate as the differing languages would allow. It wasn't until recently that those who refuse to believe the word of God began to twist the original definitions to make it fit with their true religion; evolution. Evolution is very important to them because if man is evolved then there is no Creator and no ultimate consequence to sin. It's easier for them to reject it all if the supplant it with a supposed "enlightened" Bible which says essentially nothing.

Which edition of the KJV are you talking about? It had to be updated many times, given changes in word usage. In addition, the 1611 included the Apocrypha, which was later dropped. Do you consider the Apocrypha canonical? As I pointed out several times already, 2 Sam. 21:19 was altered to read "brother of" Goliath, which represents a serious tampering with the original Hebrew text. The KJV blew it with "Jehovah." YHWH, yes; Jehovah, no, big mistranslation. Also, the "Red" Sea should read the Reed Sea. Belief in evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the various other modern editions of teh Bible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here's something I have seen:

Part of a whale skeleton hanging on display. Vestigial hip bones.

God made that skeleton. Open your eyes!

I've never seen this:

 

[Hoghead1]

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,

On Youtube, I asked several times of different Atheists/evolutionists to bring their proof to the table and let's talk about it, whether it be a single piece or a few pieces combined that prove evolution. Nearly, if not every single time a link was given to "go look at this" bunch of papers/documents/pictures and they never would bring what I asked, even after being specific and telling them why I would accept no link. I was supposed to go read all this stuff and be convinced just as they were. I never would go because I've seen it all before and there simply is nothing but what Patterson said....or things that some choose to believe as proof, but no real proof at all.

Well, that's maybe on youtube. But youtube may not be the real world of science. Also,. if you studied carefully, you would find out Patterson has been taken way out of context and admitted himself he didn't use the best choice of words. What he was trying to say is that science does not deal in absolute truths based on absolute proof. Rather, science deals in degrees of probability of something being right or wrong. That fact is commonly acknowledged among most scientists, by the way. Evolution is central in science simply because it has the highest probability of being correct.

 

[Hoghead1]

Only the NIV translates it that way, it is a "rescue translation", it is not a valid translation. You will no doubt find some people with doctorates after their name that will support this translation; they are a minority, they are doing damage to the plain literal wording of the Hebrew text, for exactly the same reasons you do it. You might ask such a professor how the Genesis writer would have to write the text to mean "formed" instead of "had formed" . . . . and discover the writing would be exactly as it is. So how does he know to translate it "had formed"? Because it rescues inerrancy.

Which is why most honest, scholarly translators including those of the revered King James translation don't take that route.

Good point. There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. Putting Gen. 2 into the pluperfect is a serious mistranslation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, that's maybe on youtube. But youtube may not be the real world of science.

They are people like you and me that represent their sides in this, so I assume they have done their home work.

Seriously man, that is like you saying...Well, that's maybe on CFC. But CFC may not be the real world of science. Meaning I should take yours and everyone else' word here as pretty much worthless?

When you say things like that, I don't know how to treat the rest of what you said because it sounds like you'll throw out anything as a defense, reasonable or not.

And I don't mean that to be as offensive as it may seem.

 

[KWCrazy]

You should trust the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

You mean, you should trust the opinions of men who look at the world through the impenetrable ignorance of naturalism, who believe that somehow everything created itself through billions of benevolent mutations, and you should wipe your feet with the word of God which was validated as truth by Jesus Christ.

And you wonder why we don't jump on that proposition?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well once again you postulate the evidence. There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. No one has been able to observe evolution and no one has been able to reproduce it. The evidence is assumption and supposition.

And it contradicts the Bible. My faith is in God's words not man's hypothesis. I don't think I'm smarter than scientists. But God is. He is uniquely qualified to say how things came into being. Evolutionists have faith in an unprovable hypothesis. I have faith in God.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Exodus confirms the six day creation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Ah, but your faith is in the words and ideas of men. You are going strictly on the fundamentalist version of the Bible, on man-made religious ideology.

 

[BobRyan]

Ah, but your faith is in the words and ideas of men.

That is precisely what we keep saying about your wild speculation each time you trash the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

I've never seen this:

Thank you for sharing that !

Now see? Aren't we all glad to get that update?

As Patterson said -

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,


Which is how they come up with these 50 year fraud "never happened in nature" scenarios.

Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

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

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.



Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because your Urantia preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Now we can add to that - the fraudulent claims about the whale fossil sequence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Thank you for sharing that !

Now see? Aren't we all glad to get that update?

As Patterson said -

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,


Which is how they come up with these 50 year fraud "never happened in nature" scenarios.




"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Now we can add to that - the fraudulent claims about the whale fossil sequence.

It was my pleasure, and thank you for posting the Patterson quote.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You mean, you should trust the opinions of men who look at the world through the impenetrable ignorance of naturalism, who believe that somehow everything created itself through billions of benevolent mutations, and you should wipe your feet with the word of God which was validated as truth by Jesus Christ.

And you wonder why we don't jump on that proposition?

When you talk like that you reveal you know nothing of the mind and heart of those who learn from God's universe.

 

[KWCrazy]

When you talk like that you reveal you know nothing of the mind and heart of those who learn from God's universe.

I really do NOT understand those who think they can learn more from the rocks than from the word of the Creator.

 

[ScottA]

Here's something I have seen:

Part of a whale skeleton hanging on display. Vestigial hip bones.

God made that skeleton. Open your eyes!

Correction...ahem...NEWS FLASH - God created it ALL out of NOTHING - you've seen nothing. LOL!

But...just to be clear - for the record...at what moment did you start believing that men were smarter than God?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I really do NOT understand those who think they can learn more from the rocks than from the word of the Creator.

God made those rocks and those rocks tell their truth.