proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Danoded]

If one thinks that evolution does not condradict the omnipotence of God and what is in the Bible, then they being mislead and deceived by satan into to following his satanic worldly doctrines.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Have a very + day.

why thank you. I'll accept your implicit inability to address the evidence at face value.

lol!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If one thinks that evolution does not condradict the omnipotence of God and what is in the Bible, then they being mislead and deceived by satan into to following his satanic worldly doctrines.

This seems to be an unwinnable corner to paint yourself into - are you sure your interpretation has to be this extreme to go against demonstrable evidence that contributes to your quality and longevity of life in every way? Plenty of Christians accept the sciences for what they are - progress and technology that gives us tangible quality of life.

Is it your position that God doesn't want this for us, but Satan does?

 

[AV1611VET]

If one thinks that evolution does not condradict the omnipotence of God and what is in the Bible, then they being mislead and deceived by satan into to following his satanic worldly doctrines.

Tell me, Danoded, are you on the up-and-up here, or are you consol-ing us?

Your posts are cranking out one WINNER after another.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not bothered by the FACT you have not proved what I say is false. Nice



Not bothered by the FACT that you are not willing to cut and paste what you consider evidence to shut me up forever. Nice



You are acting exactly in the same way you are accusing me of acting. nice

I take it you didn't bother checking then?

You posted the following quote, obviously taken from a creationist propaganda website....

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study...

...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

But why are there full stops where a portion of the text has been removed? Why remove it? What should have been there reads....

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Which completely changes the quote. Gould feels that... "the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." The fact you have to cut that portion out to misrepresent his view and try to prop up some pathetic argument against the fossil record speaks volumes about the Creationist mind set.

It's transparently dishonest and shows that you really haven't got a clue about what you are talking about if you are prepared to accept such garbage as one of "your sources".

I look forward to your denial.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then verify it with more than words.

So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest? Not nice.

No someone who demands evidence then completely fails to address it is dishonest.

"More than words" what a pathetic excuse. So you won't accept "pictures" or "words" now?

LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

No someone who demands evidence then completely fails to address it is dishonest.

What about someone who demands evidence for a series of events that didn't generate any evidence, and refuses to admit it?

 

[Danoded]

This seems to be an unwinnable corner to paint yourself into - are you sure your interpretation has to be this extreme to go against demonstrable evidence that contributes to your quality and longevity of life in every way? Plenty of Christians accept the sciences for what they are - progress and technology that gives us tangible quality of life.

Is it your position that God doesn't want this for us, but Satan does?

Satan is the master of deception, trickery and deceit, it's his plan to lead as many people away from God as possible, and will use a multitude of people to do so, such as these 'scientists' claimin evolution happened, when it is clearly contradictory to what is stated multiple times in the Bible that God created all things and said that it was good. He did not leave anything to chance, and if people believe such then they are denying his omnipotence and his work in creating the Earth, with everything already perfect. Evolution contradicts the Bible, and is therefore 100% false.

 

[Danoded]

Tell me, Danoded, are you on the up-and-up here, or are you consol-ing us?

Your posts are cranking out one WINNER after another.

Haha, it's just that I hate seeing people being mislead completely by satan, and listening to what this world parrots and being good and true, when it is completely opposite. If someone says they believe in evolution, then they are saying the Bible is false. You cannot believe both to be true.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Satan is the master of deception, trickery and deceit, it's his plan to lead as many people away from God as possible, and will use a multitude of people to do so, such as these 'scientists' claimin evolution happened, when it is clearly contradictory to what is stated multiple times in the Bible that God created all things and said that it was good. He did not leave anything to chance, and if people believe such then they are denying his omnipotence and his work in creating the Earth, with everything already perfect. Evolution contradicts the Bible, and is therefore 100% false.

How can you rule out that your God is so amazing that he didn't leave anything to chance, but set the universe going in the exact way that all the chances would turn out exactly to be this universe and us in it as we are now? Is your God not able to do that? Did God write the bible, or did fallible men who maybe didn't understand everything about God and the universe, write it?

 

[Danoded]

How can you rule out that your God is so amazing that he didn't leave anything to chance, but set the universe going in the exact way that all the chances would turn out exactly to be this universe and us in it as we are now? Is your God not able to do that? Did God write the bible, or did fallible men who maybe didn't understand all about God and the universe, write it?

God is the beginning and the end, he is all powerful and does not leave anything to chance, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He did. The Bible clearly outlines how he created Adam and Eve, and it is never written that they were the result of the evolution of primitive creatures. The Bible is the official Word of God without any errors, and it was written by man through God.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Good question! I don't include it.

History, if it disagrees with the Bible, can take a hike.

Too bad reality has billions of years of history that tells a very accurate and telling story of its entire existence... I have to go with reality, because this is where we are.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

God is the beginning and the end, he is all powerful and does not leave anything to chance, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He did.

But if God set it in motion, then he knows it isn't chance. We just think it's chance because we don't know any better - point still stands.

The Bible clearly outlines how he created Adam and Eve, and it is never written that they were the result of the evolution of primitive creatures. The Bible is the official Word of God without any errors, and it was written by man through God.

But do you agree that this universe is God's creation? Why would God's creation tell us something different to what an unnamed author wrote about his limited understanding of God? Is Satan more powerful than God?

even better - did Satan cause the man who wrote the Bible to be mistaken, rather than the millions of scientists all over the world finding out truths about God's creation??

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What about someone who demands evidence for a series of events that didn't generate any evidence, and refuses to admit it?

...then how on earth would you ever know it happened if there's no way to verify it? That's a very dangerous position to put yourself in...

 

[OzSpen]

Curious as I keep re-reading this in anticipation, what presupposition would I hold? and what does "faith/belief of atheism" entail?? What would 'no' faith/belief in atheism look like??

Bugey,

Don't you have a presupposition that plant, animal and human life developed by survival of the fittest? That is, don't you have an evolutionary premise to describe the origin of the earth and the universe? Do you presume macroevolution?

As for faith/belief of atheism, it entails some of these dimensions articulated in:

• 'One Atheist's Creed';
• See the infidel's website for The Atheist's Creed, where somw or the presuppositions are:

Critique arguments for God's existence;

The problem of evil;

Morality and religion;

Miracles;

The motivations of belief, etc​

I could discuss other presuppositional beliefs such as

• the nature of God/gods/no god;
  
• You believe in a material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles;
• This life is the only life we will ever have;
• the power of science and reason and rationality for understanding that overcomes superstition of religion;
• etc.

Do you have any of these presuppositional beliefs?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Have you seen my Apple Challenge, which causes even the most educated here to avoid admitting that creationism didn't generate any evidence?

No, I'm not aware of your 'Apple Challenge'.

So the things created in Gen 1 are not evidence of what God created???

Adam & Eve are not evidence of God's creation???

I'm not a YEC. My pastors are, but I am not. I consider myself, for lack of a better term, an Embedded Age Creationist.

However, your 'Embedded Age Creationist theory is designed to come to a conclusion that the earth is rather young, like 4,000 year? Is that correct?

Oz

 

[Jimmy D]

Bugey,

Don't you have a presupposition that plant, animal and human life developed by survival of the fittest? That is, don't you have an evolutionary premise to describe the origin of the earth and the universe? Do you presume macroevolution?

As for faith/belief of atheism, it entails some of these dimensions articulated in:

• 'One Atheist's Creed';
• See the infidel's website for The Atheist's Creed, where somw or the presuppositions are:

Critique arguments for God's existence;

The problem of evil;

Morality and religion;

Miracles;

The motivations of belief, etc​

I could discuss other presuppositional beliefs such as

• the nature of God/gods/no god;
  
• You believe in a material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles;
• This life is the only life we will ever have;
• the power of science and reason and rationality for understanding that overcomes superstition of religion;
• etc.

Do you have any of these presuppositional beliefs?

Oz

Considering evidence and arriving at a tentative conclusion is called a "presupposition" these days is it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As I understand it, necroing a thread is considered improper Netiquette.

Pull the other one, it has bells on. Quite appropriate for this time of year.

I don't consider myself a YEC.

But you do consider yourself to be Genghis Khan. Obviously what you consider to be real and what actually is real aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[OzSpen]

As I understand it, necroing a thread is considered improper Netiquette.I don't consider myself a YEC.

AV,

I looked up 6 recommended dictionaries and they knew nothing about the word, 'necroing'. I'm talking about these dictionaries: Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Cambridge, Macmillan, dictionary.com.

The only place I found this word was in the slang dictionary, Urban dictionary, which said the word meant, 'Action to dig up a dead thread in a forum'.

No mention was made that it was 'considered improper Netiquette'. From where did you get that information?

Oz

 

[TLK Valentine]

This seems to be an unwinnable corner to paint yourself into - are you sure your interpretation has to be this extreme to go against demonstrable evidence that contributes to your quality and longevity of life in every way? Plenty of Christians accept the sciences for what they are - progress and technology that gives us tangible quality of life.

Is it your position that God doesn't want this for us, but Satan does?

It would seem so -- God, as the eternal "father figure," would like us to remain eternal children... dependent on Him, and ignorant of any other possibility.

I think a line from The Last Jedi says it all (no spoilers): "We are what they move beyond. That is what it means to be a Master."

God never learned that lesson. Satan, OTOH, taught Eve critical thinking, and has paid the price for it ever since.