proving evolution as just a "theory"

[The Times]

I believe Jesus Christ is the creator.

Jesus Christ is The Creator, that is good!

I accept that God deplores homosexuality. I don't accept that God deplores a homosexual person.

God considers homosexuality as an abomination to the Created natural function of a male and a female, who produce after their own kind.

The sovereign God may or may not decide to deplore a homosexual person, for that his call and his call alone!

I not sure what it would mean to say transgender, transhumanism, and post-humanism is a lie.

You do know what I mean, because these agendas are part of the quasi science of evolution and if you as an evolution pundit don't side with those who drive these agendas, then you are ridiculed within your own profession, what ever that may be.

To speak out against these agendas is to be labelled unscientific according to today's quasi science Evolutionists.

As for being a "liberal", that word simply means to those of your ilk I don't agree with everything you say, and that would be true, apparantly.

Thankyou for highlighting that you are Liberal at heart.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You do know what I mean, because these agendas are part of the quasi science of evolution and if you as an evolution pundit don't side with those who drive these agendas, then you are ridiculed within your own profession, what ever that may be.

To speak out against these agendas is to be labelled unscientific according to today's quasi science Evolutionists.

And you said those things while, all along, you have ear wiggling muscles you never use because they are left over vestiges from a previous species that could actually turn its ears towards sound.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

False , of course.

 

[The Times]

And you said those things while, all along, you have ear wiggling muscles you never use because they are left over vestiges from a previous species that could actually turn its ears towards sound.

As I stated on a number of occassions in previous posts, Evolutionists make inconsistent and incoherent and non related references, in order to cornflate non related ideas, in their endevour to push their evolution narrative. Like the Flat Earthers they use the same arbitrary and random method of stitching non related observations and by attaching a false context.

When you state.....

"you have ear wiggling muscles you never use"

This is a false claim which is clearly false. Just because science is not yet able to determine the use of some ear wiggling muscles, is not definitively conclusive to your false assertion below....

"because they are left over vestiges from a previous species that could actually turn its ears towards sound."

You cannot prove that those muscles are exactly the same as those found in reptiles and insects, nor can you rule out that previous, current and future generations could not have uses for them, that go beyond the use of physical directional motion.

Your predicament is so precarious that it is clearly seen as a false interpretation of observed data.

I will kindly inform you that muscles in the ear, are like strings in a piano that contract to produce the required depth and synchronicity of sound. The ear's function is not only for the purpose of hearing, but its main purpose is to detect the phase change in sound, to determine the direction and distance of sound, based on the contractions of muscles in the vicinity of the inner ear vestibular nerve, which is an input reference to the occular input. When those muscles don't contract properly, due to an outer or inner ear inflammatory condition, then the result is the inability to balance, because of the confused electrical inputs from the eyes and the vestibular nerve, which results in vertigo. Take out those ear muscles and you will observe evidence of vertigo, resulting in balance issues. The person will feel like they are drunk and sudden movement will bring on a tripping effect.

That is why bone anchored hearing aids implants, use the bone near those muscles to reverberate sound and the muscles are sychronised with the hearing aids by specialised sensory feedback machinery to fine tune the hearing aid for the aged persons muscles reactivity to audible sound across a spectrum of electrical sound waves.

 

[The Times]

I believe that is why the Seminarian culture in Iraq is not taught in schools, is because it would destroy all premises of the Evolution Theory.

Here is a video from a gentlemen who I do not endorse, but can be taken as a testimony, along others who really want to delve into the ancient Sumerian civilization of Iraq.

Here is the link.....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And now we're going down the road to crazy conspiracy town.
What joy.

 

[The Times]

And now we're going down the road to crazy conspiracy town.
What joy.

Ancient societies are witnesses to the fact and further verify many Biblical accounts. The fact that the most technologically advanced Sumarian society is never taught in schools cannot be, but a conscious and wilful decision to censor it from the curriculum of schools across the western world's education system. This act is not a conspiracy theory, but is a conspiracy fact.

As the saying goes....

"Can you handle the TRUTH!"

 

[The Times]

The Sumerian society and what is documented in the Bible regarding the world wide flood event, is scientifically proven by geological surveys of ice in Iceland. Further to this, there is ample evidence to prove that a rapid flooding caused the layering of sediments in a very short time, debunking any claim of evolutionists of those sediments layering being millions of millions of years old.

There is a proverb that if the Evolution theory cannot be trusted in small matters like these, how can anyone trust it in bigger and more important matters, such as the creation and origins of life itself.

The Ancient Sumarians knew more than what Evolutionists claim to know about origins, yet we today live in a world of deception, where truth is what is funded to be true and not on the basis of merit, evidence, culture, historic and present witnesses.

It is a great shame that people continue to serve the lie of evolution theory, by well funded organisations who have one mind and that is to censor and to dismiss evidence, both historic and present. Shame indeed!

It is conspiracy fact that many ancient societies are not taught in school, because all testify origins of life to be through intelligent design.

 

[Astrophile]

Since no one has nor can prove that the species were not CREATED by YHWH, through YESHUA,
the THEORY of evolution remains a theory.

In its way, this is quite informative. It clarifies what you think the basis of the debate is, and it also shows that you do not understand what a scientific theory actually is.

I suppose that you could also say that since nobody has proved or can prove that the planets are not pushed along their orbits by angels appointed to that task by YHWH, the THEORY of gravitation remains a theory.

 

[rjs330]

'A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.'

'Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”'

See Scientific theory - Wikipedia. You ought to study the factual evidence, in genetics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology, that the theory of evolution is based on.



Probably not. From what I have read, 'The moon is made of green cheese' was a story told to people who were naive and gullible to make them look foolish. It was a standard joke, like 'Wigan pier' and the 'Swiss navy', first recorded from England in the 16th century. It was certainly never a scientific theory.

Finally someone points to what I have been saying. The evolution theory doesn't stand up. Why? Because it doesn't meet the criteria. It can't be tested, or observed or reproduced. Therefore it is mere supposition or assumption.

 

[rjs330]

And you said those things while, all along, you have ear wiggling muscles you never use because they are left over vestiges from a previous species that could actually turn its ears towards sound.

Another assumption.

 

[Speedwell]

Finally someone points to what I have been saying. The evolution theory doesn't stand up. Why? Because it doesn't meet the criteria. It can't be tested, or observed or reproduced. Therefore it is mere supposition or assumption.

You realize, I hope, that the testing required by the scientific method can include the testing of evidence left behind by a phenomenon which occurred in the past, even though the phenomenon itself cannot be reproduced.

 

[pitabread]

Finally someone points to what I have been saying. The evolution theory doesn't stand up. Why? Because it doesn't meet the criteria. It can't be tested, or observed or reproduced. Therefore it is mere supposition or assumption.

Repeating falsehoods based on a lack of understanding of the scientific method doesn't make them true.

You've been corrected on this in the past, but evidently you just don't care.

 

[pitabread]

You realize, I hope, that the testing required by the scientific method can include the testing of evidence left behind by a phenomenon which occurred in the past, even though the phenomenon itself cannot be reproduced.

Unfortunately they're basically a brick wall at this point. They just keep repeating the same soundbite over and over, and ignore anything to the contrary.

There's not much you can do when a person chooses to wallow in their own ignorance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

< shrugs > ask the paint critics and experts.

Showing paintings here is an empty gesture, no value. (can't do anything with it )

It was a counter to your claim that "similarity in living things is evidence for a shared designer". That is, I gave examples of the same designer (the first painter) making drastically different works of art, and a second painter that had the same style as one of the paintings made by the first.

Furthermore, even nature can trick us when it comes to art. There are a few "cave paintings" that are actually just natural formations in the rock, and one has to know what to look for in order to distinguish them from real ones. So, even natural processes can produce something which appears intelligently designed, yet, isn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Sumerian society and what is documented in the Bible regarding the world wide flood event, is scientifically proven by geological surveys of ice in Iceland.

-_- the mere idea of a worldwide flood is disproven by the fact that the world would still be flooded if it had occurred. There isn't enough water on this planet to submerge all the land. But, good job noticing that the bible has plagiarized some of the stories in it.

Further to this, there is ample evidence to prove that a rapid flooding caused the layering of sediments in a very short time, debunking any claim of evolutionists of those sediments layering being millions of millions of years old.

-_- it isn't "evolutionists" that claim that the rock layers are very old. It's geologists... dating well before evolution as a theory even existed.

There is a proverb that if the Evolution theory cannot be trusted in small matters like these, how can anyone trust it in bigger and more important matters, such as the creation and origins of life itself.

-_- why do you think evolution as a theory, which ONLY covers how populations change over time and generations, would have anything to do with dating rocks and the origin of life? Evolution doesn't cover the same material that the whole of creationism does.

It is a great shame that people continue to serve the lie of evolution theory, by well funded organisations who have one mind and that is to censor and to dismiss evidence, both historic and present. Shame indeed!

Extreme lack of motivation to lie. I am greatly annoyed by conspiracy theories that say that evolution is this global Illuminati lie or some other such garbage. What reason would I have to lie? "Money", the conspiracy theorists say. What motivates someone to pay me to lie? "Satan", they say. What motivates anyone to knowingly work with satan? "Money and power", they say. To which I say, garbage, no one in their right mind would ever consider temporary, worldly things as being worth trading their eternal soul and integrity. Furthermore, plenty of scientists, including myself, would not take the money and lie. Even attempting to cover up a lie so widely known would be a pointless waste of time.

Well, that, and I have the benefit of actually having a biology major. No one's offering me any cash to "keep my mouth shut".

It is conspiracy fact that many ancient societies are not taught in school, because all testify origins of life to be through intelligent design.

Uh, what? I took world history in high school, no one is hiding the existence of these ancient peoples or their beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Could this be what is prophesied in the Bible as the Strong Delusion, that befalls the Man/people (Anthropos) of Sin?

Absolutely.

All these Evolutionists have one mind, that is to deny God his authorship of creation, by looking at creation from a chaotic vantage point, where even gender lines are not left from being corrupted by the pushing of the boundary of the lie.

Some will tell us these days, at least here on the boards, that the purpose is not to deny God, that one has nothing to do with the other, but it is. It's tricky that way. A Christian might finally come to believe evolution because it does not deny God but as you say to deny he created the world is to deny him and make a liar out of his word.

The whole idea is to do away with God, so they can do away with Hell, so they can live how they wish and pretend there are no consequences. It's much easier to pretend when we can get others to go along with the delusion.

I'll say it again, "God" just makes sense, the alternative is ridiculous, try as they will to make it otherwise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Could this be what is prophesied in the Bible as the Strong Delusion, that befalls the Man/people (Anthropos) of Sin?

Romans 1:18-20
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Nothing says "I'm right" by making the empty claim that anyone that disagrees is lying or ignorant. That was sarcasm, by the way.

From the Fibonacci Pattern of his devine signiture across all of creation from the finite to the infinite, God's authorship of life itself is evidenced in all the universe, yet the people of sin/lawlessness continue to have contempt for him by advocating an Evolution Theory religion that asserts that there is NO Intelligent Designer behind all these miraculous natural wonders.

-_- you do know that not all organisms meet the Fibonacci pattern, and that it is only a COMMON pattern in nature, right? As in, there are flowers with 4 petals, for example, and 4 is not a number in the generic Fibonacci sequence. Also, the theory of evolution doesn't exclude the possible influence of a deity in the forms of nature. It just doesn't explicitly include one or multiple deities because there isn't sufficient evidence of their involvement... or existence, for that matter.

I will make a statement that will identify all Evolution pundits, whether they be deityless Atheists or deity theists. They are all Liberals in the heart through and through, so go figure. Notice to be Liberal is to serve the creature who is man, hence the term Man of Sin. In the Greek it is anthropos of sin, which is plural for people of sin.

You've never met a conservative atheist? Pop on over to the political subforum.

Also note that those who advocate Evolution have no problem with embracing transgender non human identity.

Ha, what? Those things have nothing to do with each other. In fact, the most subscribed to atheist youtuber doesn't view otherkin as legitimate at all. I also personally question how much people can actually identify as a different species entirely, though I ultimately don't care as long as they don't hurt themselves or anyone else. Yet, I would never be willing to date a transgender person. My very rigid heterosexuality can't get over that they were or currently are physically the gender I am not sexually attracted to, regardless as to what they personally identify as.

All these Evolutionists have one mind, that is to deny God his authorship of creation, by looking at creation from a chaotic vantage point, where even gender lines are not left from being corrupted by the pushing of the boundary of the lie.

Pfft, great insult to all the people that believe in deity guided evolution. Also, I bet it would be a lot easier to hate a group of people if you eliminated any potential for variety in their thoughts. Alas, Christians have more in common with each other than atheists do with each other.

 

[Speedwell]

Absolutely.



Some will tell us these days, at least here on the boards, that the purpose is not to deny God, that one has nothing to do with the other, but it is. It's tricky that way. A Christian might finally come to believe evolution because it does not deny God but as you say to deny he created the world is to deny him and make a liar out of his word.

The whole idea is to do away with God, so they can do away with Hell, so they can live how they wish and pretend there are no consequences. It's much easier to pretend when we can get others to go along with the delusion.

I'll say it again, "God" just makes sense, the alternative is ridiculous, try as they will to make it otherwise.

I don't quite see why an atheist, who believes neither in God, nor Hell, nor the divine authorship of the Bible, should think that way.

 

[pitabread]

The whole idea is to do away with God, so they can do away with Hell, so they can live how they wish and pretend there are no consequences. It's much easier to pretend when we can get others to go along with the delusion.

You know that there are far easier ways to disbelieve in hell or god than spending 150+ years concocting a scientific theory based on the work of thousands of scientists through multiple generations, countries, nationalities, religious backgrounds resulting in millions of published works, teaching at higher universities, and the inclusion of museums, governments, industry, etc.

I mean, it seems like an awful lot of work when base disbelief is far simpler than that. Just basic philosophical routes can get you disbelief in god and the Christian faith. No need for all the science-y stuff.