Is God a liar?

[Abraxos]

@Speedwell
Um you seem to forget that there is zero evidence of drastic mutations that would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptability. I suppose you can believe you were once a fish, but that's not science.

Quick question: If evolution is true there would literally be millions of "transitional" fossils found. Why is there none?

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, Former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University.

 

[Speedwell]

@Speedwell
Um you seem to forget that there is zero evidence of drastic mutations that would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptability. I suppose you can believe you were once a fish, but that's not science.

As the great evolutionary scientist Enst Mayr pointed out in the quote you posted, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CLAIMS.

It's only a straw man you like to bash.

Who gave it to you?

 

[Speedwell]

As the great evolutionary scientist Enst Mayr pointed out in the quote you posted, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CLAIMS.

It's only a straw man you like to bash.

Who gave it to you?

Never mind.

The Mayr quote and the Gould quote appear on most Creationist lists of mined quotes. If you give me one or two more I can probably figure out which list you're using.

 

[Abraxos]

As the great evolutionary scientist Enst Mayr pointed out in the quote you posted, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CLAIMS.

It's only a straw man you like to bash.

Who gave it to you?

The theory claims that there is a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which increases the information in the genome. To the layman, it essentially means a fish growing toes.

Here's a few more quotes from scientists and intellectuals who had problems with the monkey philosophy. http://www.detectingdesign.com/quotesfromscientists.html

Never mind.

The Mayr quote and the Gould quote appear on most Creationist lists of mined quotes. If you give me one or two more I can probably figure out which list you're using.

No context was lost on what was said.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

Still nada. Wonder why, probably cause there is none.

 

[Colter]

What we observe within the fossilized strata of the sedimentary layers is a record of what happened. How it happened may be a matter of speculation and debate, but one thing that is certain is that it didn't happen in 6 days or 6,000 years. Consistent with evolution, the strata reveals organisms from the simple to the complex, living in the oldest to the youngest time periods.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or philosophers, it was written by holy men with an agenda.

 

[Speedwell]

Here's a few more quotes from scientists and intellectuals who had problems with the monkey philosophy. http://www.detectingdesign.com/quotesfromscientists.html

Yes, that is one of the lists I was referring to. But be careful who you associate with; I don't know what your views are exactly, but Pitman is more an ID guy than a Creationist.

 

[Aman777]

They (the mainstream) sell us naturalism, a belief.

Amen, and they force it upon our children in the public schools. Adam had an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 yet some teach that mindless nature magically put Adam's superior intelligence into Apes. When you ask them how that happened, they go into their song and dance about eons of time and magical positive mutations (which can NEVER be repeated) which only changed SOME Apes into reasoning Humans. "Just take our word for it" because we know more than God, they falsely preach.

 

[Aman777]

Usually in science there are needs for consistency and that little thing called evidence.

But lets run through this logic that it had adapted to it's environment and see if it is reasonable.

When something is well adapted to its environment it doesn’t need to change, this would mean the environment would need to be constant for the supposed period of time - in this case 3.5 billion years. That's a long time for essentially no radical or gradual change to take place in the alleged evolutionary time-frame. According to what we see today is a good indication that there are many radical environmental changes that have supposedly occurred over the supposedly 3.5 billions of years, including the arrival of new predators and parasites.

No consistency on the evolutionary theory. What's the alternative?

God's Truth is the alternative and shows that Lord God formed Adam and breathed life into him on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Every other living creature was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Now, it's your time to tell us How Humans could have possibly "evolved" from creatures made long AFTER Humans. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Where do you guys get this stuff? Have you ever taken a real college-level biology or genetics class?

Were you brainwashed as a child to accept the incomplete false ToE?

 

[Aman777]

This is texbook stuff.

Let me simplify:

Evolution in the sense that things change, is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation and natural selection)

Evolution in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms, this is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, measured, or tested. This is what Darwinian evolution claims.

Amen and it is provably InComplete since the godless men who dreamed it up did NOT know that Adam's world (Kosmos) was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 They are the Evolution preachers of the "last days" of this Earth. God refers to them as Scoffers who are "willingly ignorant" of the destruction of Adam's entire world. This means that their Theory that Humans evolved from Apes, is totally False.

 

[Aman777]

The theory of gravity has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. A theory should be able to stand on it's own merits.

The ToE fails because scientists don't believe God when He tells us that Adam, the FIRST Human NEVER took a step on Planet Earth. The ToE is InComplete because it ignores the fact that Adam's entire world is gone. The idea that Humans evolved from Apes is ridiculous.

 

[Aman777]

What we observe within the fossilized strata of the sedimentary layers is a record of what happened. How it happened may be a matter of speculation and debate, but one thing that is certain is that it didn't happen in 6 days or 6,000 days. Consistent with evolution the state reveals organism from the simple to the complex living in the oldest to the youngest time periods.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or philosophers, it was written by holy men with an agenda.

The Bible was NOT authored by mortal men and Genesis proves it. NO man, 3k years ago, could have possibly known the Scientific facts we know today and yet EVERY word of Genesis AGREES with the most recent discoveries of our time. Genesis 1 is the story of the 6 Days/Ages of Creation including events which are Future to 2016. Gen 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which will surely happen AFTER Jesus returns to our Planet at the end of the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation, which continues today.

 

[Speedwell]

Were you brainwashed as a child to accept the incomplete false ToE?

No. I didn't come across the theory of evolution until I was older and already knew that a literal interpretation of Genesis was nonsense.

 

[Aman777]

No. I didn't come across the theory of evolution until I was older and already knew that a literal interpretation of Genesis was nonsense.

Then you must think that the Holy Spirit just Lied to us? I don't think He did. You have the wrong interpretation. God's Truth MUST be the Truth Scientifically and Historically or it is NOT God's Literal Truth, but instead is a mis-interpretation of mere, mortal, men. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

Then you must think that the Holy Spirit just Lied to us? I don't think He did. You have the wrong interpretation. God's Truth MUST be the Truth Scientifically and Historically or it is NOT God's Literal Truth, but instead is a mis-interpretation of mere, mortal, men. Amen?

No, the Holy Spirit didn't lie to us.

You think it's got to be 100% accurate literal history or it's a lie.

You go on as if that was some kind of self-evident proposition.

It's not.

 

[Grafted In]

Open Heart, I do not rule out an old earth that God had restored many times, but I certainly do not believe He has ever lied. If He had, He would not be deserving of our praises, nor could we believe anything He has revealed to us.
There is a portion of Scripture when He told His followers "Other sheep have I that are not of this fold".
I'm not convinced that He has not destroyed and renewed the earth many times. Many, many times. This would explain much of what we have discovered that simply does not fit within the framework of Scripture ( or that has not yet been discovered in Scripture).
The "Between Gen 1:1 and 1:2." thing.

 

[Meowzltov]

Usually in science there are needs for consistency and that little thing called evidence.

But lets run through this logic that it had adapted to it's environment and see if it is reasonable.

When something is well adapted to its environment it doesn’t need to change, this would mean the environment would need to be constant for the supposed period of time - in this case 3.5 billion years. That's a long time for essentially no radical or gradual change to take place in the alleged evolutionary time-frame. According to what we see today is a good indication that there are many radical environmental changes that have supposedly occurred over the supposedly 3.5 billions of years, including the arrival of new predators and parasites.

No consistency on the evolutionary theory. What's the alternative?

You clearly don't understand how evolution works. Something can be adapted to its environment. Yet mutations will occur. If a mutation occurs that is adaptive, it will mutliply. If both strands are adaptive, you won't have the original version dying out, but will have both strands surviving. There are a great many ancient forms that are highly adaptive and still around today. It's why we joke about cockroaches surviving when the rest of the world dies off.

 

[Meowzltov]

Open Heart, I do not rule out an old earth that God had restored many times, but I certainly do not believe He has ever lied. If He had, He would not be deserving of our praises, nor could we believe anything He has revealed to us.
There is a portion of Scripture when He told His followers "Other sheep have I that are not of this fold".
I'm not convinced that He has not destroyed and renewed the earth many times. Many, many times. This would explain much of what we have discovered that simply does not fit within the framework of Scripture ( or that has not yet been discovered in Scripture).
The "Between Gen 1:1 and 1:2." thing.

The fossil record doesn't support the idea of distinct unrelated worlds, but rather one world that has gradually changed.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to come up with a hypothesis that accommodates the evidence.

 

[Meowzltov]

An animal cannot gain new information that wasn't already there.

That is simply not true. You don't what a mutation is. If you duplicate a strand, or change a molecule, or whatever, you have something new. Retroviruses add entirely new parts to DNA.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes, good parrot...

Problem is though, you can not introduce new traits gradually, because this would mean incomplete systems (that can not work yet) hampering survival.

Personal attacks only demean the attacker.

I know you have been told that new traits can't be introduced gradually, but it's simply not true. Often, the intermediate forms have adaptations utterly different than the adaptation of the final form.