• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Some things learned when coming out of atheism and evolutionism...[moved]

LoricaLady

YHWH's
Site Supporter
Jul 27, 2009
19,130
12,752
Ohio
✟1,330,296.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I was raised in the Bible belt but declared myself an atheist at 14. But...the Almighty came knocking at my door. Maybe He is knocking at some reader's door right now. Here are some things I learned when I escaped the dark and deceiving doubt box:
.
Most atheism can be traced to evolutionary indoctrination. Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but an ape update who sprang from some evidenceless and antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Creator Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box.
.
We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all.
.
The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.)
.
We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy.
.
Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.
.
Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." Riiiight.
.
We've also been told that we came via a fish, specifially Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Look at the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful drawings of Tik with long, muscular legs bending as it transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence? In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.)
.
Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. You will get no answer that makes any sense whatsoever. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking."
.
After over 150 years evolution is still a theory. It doesn't have the evidence needed to elevate it to the status of a scientific LAW. You are not an ape update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that:
.
Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories?
.
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church.
.
See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her.
.
Here is some more documented, scientific, evidence, not nearly all of it at all. See CBN's short vid Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him.
.
Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead.
Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth.
Skip to 1:31 to miss the book ad.
.
The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the opthamologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who created time, space, matter, energy and you - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTtDhvk_aw4
.
The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: There is no paint on the Shroud and they have no clue how the image got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible, what NT writers report. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
.
These miracles are not what many would call proof. But they are certainly evidence. In a court of law you generally rely on evidence, not proof, as the actual crime is historical and cannot usually be observed (unless there was a video cam.)
.
About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out.
.
You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
.
If anyone wants to argue over any of the above, I just bet someone here would like to take you on. Not me. I feel that if someone didn't see what I already said, they aren't going to see anything else I say. To me it's so obvious. But...even if someone doesn't "get it" now, perhaps they will later. I pray for that. Blessings and bye. :)
 

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence.

The "law" of biogenesis is not actually a thing. Two big problems here:
  1. This "law" is self-refuting. Life only comes from life... But unless life existed before the big bang, it had to come from something that wasn't technically alive.
  2. If you hold your own "theory" (I'll get back to this) up to this scrutiny, it fails, because according to creationism, all kinds of life comes from God - not from their own kind.
In reality, the correct form of the law of biogenesis is as follows:

The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.
Note: "complex". "Modern". These are important caveats, because we already know that life necessarily had to arise from something other than life as we know it.

The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together.

Statistically impossible? Okay, first of all, are we talking about a modern cell? Yeah, no kidding you couldn't put that back together again with modern technology. Modern cells are the product of billions of years of evolution. This is what a modern bacterium looks like:

image002.gif


It is phenomenally complex. By comparison, here's what the first cell is hypothesized to look like:

f-d%3A114128ee1035cdcc662aecdee2d7c276f6ad0cbd0161754f6c76d730%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD.1


Now, we don't know if it looked like this, but this is more or less what we would expect to find: a self-replicating RNA string enclosed in a lipid layer. We already understand how RNA and its building blocks can form in nature, and we've managed to synthesize it. While we have yet to reach a complete understanding, the work is still ongoing, and it is incredibly complex and fiddly work. Meanwhile, any talk of statistics needs to keep in mind that we had the entire surface area of the earth to work with over a period of about a billion years, which does somewhat improve our odds.

No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them?

It should be easy? Well first of all, as previously pointed out, we would not expect cells today to look or act anything like the cells in the past; modern cells are phenomenally complex. That bacterium I posted above? It's been evolving and adapting for billions of years. There are no "simple cells" any more; they either evolved or died out. But more importantly, we're trying to replicate conditions we cannot access and perform microscopic experiments within those conditions. We're trying to replicate in the lab something which is in fact phenomenally rare and difficult. You drastically undersell the difficulty of these problems.

(And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.)

Evolution and abiogenesis are related concepts. However, once you have life, it doesn't matter where it came from. It doesn't matter if the first single-celled organisms formed via some natural process or by supernatural means; once you have populations that self-replicate imperfectly, you will have mutations and thus evolution. The topics are different and must be addressed differently. The rejection of abiogenesis does not have any effect on the validity of evolution.

We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy.

Wow, there is so much nonsense to unpack here.

First off, yes, Lucy is "any other ol' Australopithecus". However, the skeleton was far, far more complete than previous specimens at the time (before then, all we had had was a few skulls and a pelvis), and contained some vital information about the species, including the hip bone and the knee bone, which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Australopithecus walked upright. This is just one of the many pieces of information that place the species as a clear transitional fossil between humans and apes. And no, the similarities are not minor - what we have here is a clear go-between between humans and great apes.

Secondly, homology means more than you think ("similar homology" is redundant; I'm not sure you know what the term means). We observe a near-perfect overlap between homology in genetics and physiology. This is important, because it means we can use homology to track changes over time as species diversify, and we can use the similarities and differences between species to see how long ago they diverged. The Tiktaalik example below is an excellent one. I'll get to that in a moment.

Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." Riiiight.

If you had been getting your information back in 1974 when Lucy was discovered, well, you'd still be wrong, because of things like Java Man, but you wouldn't be as wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

You are very wrong. Human evolution is extremely well-documented. We have many transitional forms, detailing a slow, gradual transition from mostly-apelike to mostly-humanlike.

We've also been told that we came via a fish, specifially Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish."

No. No, it's not. Tiktaalik shows every sign of being a transitional fossil. It's got a few things that separate it from "just a fish" quite clearly.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html

Its morphology does not resemble that of any modern fish. It can move its neck freely; modern fish cannot. Its head is flat and it has nostrils on the top of its head. Fish don't do that. It has a clearly defined bone structure within its fin which you can find in every single tetrapodal animal - fish do not have that. This is part of why homology is so useful. Tetrapods universally have this set of bones. Even those who returned to the water still have them present in their morphology. Fish do not. This indicates that most likely, there was some split in ancestry here. It's not just the similarities - it's also the differences that matter. You don't find fish with this bone structure. They are not, as you erroneously claimed, "just fin bones" - it's the structure you see in all tetrapods, and in no fish.

fin-limb_2006-1.gif


We use homology to determine ancestry because it demonstrably works. Or is it just a coincidence that when we trace ancestry back through genetics, we come up with the same nested hierarchy that we get when we trace it back through morphology? And the same one we get when we build it via ERVs?

After over 150 years evolution is still a theory. It doesn't have the evidence needed to elevate it to the status of a scientific LAW.

And now you don't even know what the word "theory" means. I'll give you a hint: theories do not become laws. Before you come in here and dispute one of the most well-understood scientific theories in existence, it would behoove you to know the very basics.

This is not even everything wrong with your post. You clearly do not understand the basics of evolution or the evidence you're trying to dispute.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,362
14,061
✟257,467.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Most atheism can be traced to evolutionary indoctrination.
The point at which I stopped reading. Sheer nonsense. There were atheists before evolution was discovered, and there are literally billions of Christians AND members of other faiths who are perfectly orthodox and accept evolutionary theory as scientific fact.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,467
4,001
47
✟1,129,341.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The point at which I stopped reading. Sheer nonsense. There were atheists before evolution was discovered, and there are literally billions of Christians AND members of other faiths who are perfectly orthodox and accept evolutionary theory as scientific fact.
In Australia, USA and the UK, I'm pretty sure evolution accepting Christians out number atheists of all types and beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Most atheism can be traced to evolutionary indoctrination.

Most modern atheism flows from that most seductive of all idols - money. The New Testament seems to be well aware of just how seductive it is:

The love of money is the root of all evil; It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.....; You cannot serve both God and mammon, and so on.

Compared to their ancestors, most people in the West today have never had it so good economically.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,362
14,061
✟257,467.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In Australia, USA and the UK, I'm pretty sure evolution accepting Christians out number atheists of all types and beliefs.
I'd need to see figures to know for sure, but that sounds pretty accurate.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Most modern atheism flows from that most seductive of all idols - money.

Hold up. I was told my participation in the Evil Atheist Conspiracy[tm] was a voluntary role. Are the rest of you getting a paycheck?
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
30,795
22,461
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟594,894.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Hold up. I was told my participation in the Evil Atheist Conspiracy[tm] was a voluntary role. Are the rest of you getting a paycheck?
You're payed on a "christians you convert and send to the lake of fire" basis.

You're propably not that good at it. Step up your game!
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Most modern atheism flows from that most seductive of all idols - money. The New Testament seems to be well aware of just how seductive it is:

The love of money is the root of all evil; It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.....; You cannot serve both God and mammon, and so on.

Compared to their ancestors, most people in the West today have never had it so good economically.

Some of those real rich, television preachers would show otherwise.

I was a Christian for 40 years and I know plenty of Christians, who worship the almighty dollar.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,893
17,793
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟461,102.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
...snip...
If anyone wants to argue over any of the above, I just bet someone here would like to take you on. Not me. I feel that if someone didn't see what I already said, they aren't going to see anything else I say. To me it's so obvious. But...even if someone doesn't "get it" now, perhaps they will later. I pray for that. Blessings and bye. :)
So to put simply, post & run.
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
30,795
22,461
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟594,894.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Refreshing reflection.

The matter of the "sudden evolutionary jump" in intelligence on the evolutionary timeline has, and it would seem, continues to be, quite the anomaly for science. Indeed, it appears many of the posited theories for this jump may be more mystical than even that of their religious counterparts.
Not really, there are lots of animals that exhibit high intelligence, often on par with children of age 6 and up. Crows, dolphins or octopusses (or whatever the plural of that one is) spring to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Some of those real rich, television preachers would show otherwise.

I was a Christian for 40 years and I know plenty of Christians, who worship the almighty dollar.

That might be a valid criticism if I had said lots of dosh necessarily leads to atheism, rather than is a psychological stimulant towards it. As for televangelists, they come across to me as being thorough going hypocrites. Unbelievably he is still going strong, but maybe twenty years ago now, one Maurice Cerullo shot himself in the foot by inviting people to send him money to pray for them.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not really, there are lots of animals that exhibit high intelligence, often on par with children of age 6 and up. Crows, dolphins or octopusses (or whatever the plural of that one is) spring to mind.

Adult chimpanzees supposedly have the IQ of a human five year old, but that's about it.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That might be a valid criticism if I had said lots of dosh necessarily leads to atheism, rather than is a psychological stimulant towards it. As for televangelists, they come across to me as being thorough going hypocrites. Unbelievably he is still going strong, but maybe twenty years ago now, one Maurice Cerullo shot himself in the foot by inviting people to send him money to pray for them.

I do agree, personal psychology plays a large role in whether someone is a believer or non believer.

In regards to your claim about money being the motivator of atheism, I don't buy it.
 
Upvote 0