God's beautiful creation

[Hans Blaster]

Pass again. Not buying into your limited worldview.

How is my "worldview" "limited". I mearly described what science is? Have you ever done any actual science?

Research North Korea, China, India, most of the Middle East and especially Nigeria, for a few examples. Burning down churches, illegalizing gatherings, destroying villages and towns, and banning Bibles is only the beginning.

Which has nothing to do with not publishing pseudoscience in scientific journals.

Considering that God has so accurately foretold thousands of years of human events in His Holy Bible, I have no doubt in the accuracy of the full extent of the persecution of the Church that is and is to come. It will be worldwide.

Don't mistake warning an unbelieving world for personal fear, though. Those sealed by His Holy Spirit have nothing to fear - and we know it! Nor those yet to come to Him. We fear not those who can only kill the body.

Matthew 24:20-22

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

This is not the "biblical prophecy" section. It is the science section. Try to stick to the topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do creationists need to prove when the evidence is right before our eyes?

If you don't think there is anything to prove, the exclusion of creationism (religion) from scientific journals is no skin off your back. The short answer -- do some science and you can get it published.

They say God created the ecology and lifeforms. There are about countless different lifeforms including land animals, marine creatures, birds, vegetation etc etc etc (estimate ranges from 300,000 to 500,000 different varieties). How can all these varieties turn out so wholesome and beautiful,

wholesome and beautiful are a judgement, and not a scientific conclusion.

and not to mention the ecology system consisting of oxygen, water, COs, nitrogen and all other elements to sustain life.

Those elements come from stars. Planet formation is another astronomical topic. That is where you should look for those questions.

These are evidence and proof right before our eyes, but people want to believe in something else, that if all happen by themselves without a creator. If so, how did it even begin? with a few cells that start changing so slooowly on a pile of soil or rocks ....?

The origin of life is a field of active research.

And everything turn out so well? Where's their proof?

"turn out well" is another judgement that is not scientific in nature.

Some people ask if God made all these, then who made God? But does everything has to be made? Why can't God just exist? Why must He be made according to our mental limitation?

Not a scientific question therefore, not relevant to this board.

And there is evidence in the Bible about geography and science which is true, which sceptics don't want to acknowledge.

There really isn't. The ancient Israelites seem to be very poorly informed on natural philosophy as is reflected on how poor their religious texts are about the natural world.

 

[roman2819]

wholesome and beautiful are a judgement, and not a scientific conclusion.

Those elements come from stars. Planet formation is another astronomical topic. That is where you should look for those questions.

Where is the proofs that earth elements come from the stars? Where is the proof, since you talk about being scientific? Active research still means no proof yet that the cells evolved to transform themselves.. I can say with 100% confidence that it is impossible -- and many people know it, but they try to deceive themselves by covering it with science..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where is the proofs that earth elements come from the stars? Where is the proof, since you talk about being scientific?

We can directly measure elements and isotopes freshly made in stars.

Active research still means no proof yet that the cells evolved to transform themselves.. I can say with 100% confidence that it is impossible -- and many people know it, but they try to deceive themselves by covering it with science..

If active research means no proof something can happen, how can you say with 100% confidence that the same thing can't happen? (There is, as you say, active research ongoing on the topic.)

 

[roman2819]

We can directly measure elements and isotopes freshly made in stars.

It does not mean the elements travel from star to earth.

If active research means no proof something can happen, how can you say with 100% confidence that the same thing can't happen? (There is, as you say, active research ongoing on the topic.)

We can use common sense and logic to interpret what we see, to use probability to decide the odds of more than 300,000 lifeforms be transformed from tiny cells designing and transforming themselves. In case you insist that common sense is not scientific, but does everything has to proceed from science only? Many daily and common stuff do not run on scientific proof.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wener didn't say fossils contradict evolution, as you claimed.

Instead He said that fossils found a long time along do not look different from the skeletal remain of he same lifeforms - and that poses a challenge to evolution.

You mention a handful of animals that don't change even after a long time ie Sharks, snakes, turtles, tortoises, coelocanth. So thats 5 out of estimated 200,000 species of animals . So where is the fossils to show that other animals change, eg pigs, pigeons, tigers, donkeys, monkeys. and another 100,000 others?

First off, I didn't say fossils contradict evolution, I said 'living fossils'. The fact that you couldn't understand simple English worries me greatly.

And secondly, the rest of your commentary makes no sense, which is worrying in of itself, and if you mean it sincerely, then I do not believe that you are here to talk in good faith. The fact that many creatures that lived in history didn't look too dissimilar from modern day animals is not a problem for evolution in the slightest.

 

[roman2819]

First off, I didn't say fossils contradict evolution, I said 'living fossils'. The fact that you couldn't understand simple English worries me greatly.

According to dictionary, fossils are the remnants of dead lifeforms. Your own term 'living fossils' is wrong.

And secondly, the rest of your commentary makes no sense, which is worrying in of itself, and if you mean it sincerely, then I do not believe that you are here to talk in good faith. The fact that many creatures that lived in history didn't look too dissimilar from modern day animals is not a problem for evolution in the slightest.

Doesn't evolution say that lifeforms evolve and change? Are you shifting goal posts?

I ask someone the following questions, which I ask you since you seem to be shifting definition of evolution.

1. What is evolution according to the view, and what are the main points? Although i heard it before, but let's hear from you, assuming you represent their definition correctly.
I know evolution doesn't say there is no God, but it implies so. Do you think evolution implies no God? How then do you define evolution, or explain the main points?

2. According to evolution, can one kind of living lifeform change to another over a long time, for example can an amphibian gradually change into a reptile? If yes, why are there no fossils of in-between species? I believe the same kind can evolve within themselves for example: there are many different breeds of horses ) but they cannot cross over ( eg: a crocodile does not become a komodo). Don't say such statements show my ignorance, but its a genuine question because I have heard evolution say so many things, so perhaps you can clarify.

I will add a 3d question: Do you believe there is no God? By God, i don't mean an intelligence like the economic invisible hand. I mean a real God who sent Jesus to earth. (Don't debate about Jesus yet, stick to evolution)

 

[Joseph G]

There are over two billion Christians in the world. Most of them are Traditional Christians (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Maronites. Greek, Russian, Ethopian & Armenian Orthodox, Copts, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Thomas Christians). I doubt if you could muster more than about 100 million YECs, most of them in the US.

As I mentioned, numbers are unimpressive to God. As are denominational or any other categorizing labels. Wolves and sheep are in every flock.

Here is what defines one as truly saved from cover to cover in Holy Scripture - so often repeated and thematic of the entire Gospel - that it is impossible to miss a proper interpretation if one really studies the OT and NT of Scripture. That requires, though, that one actually cracks it open first. And I mean beyond Genesis 1...

"And he believed God, and it was accounted unto Him as righteousness."

The true remnant I spoke of? They have been around since the Book of Acts (gathered in believer's homes and such - later as gatherings only identified as "the church of [city]"- and have never required official recognition as being part of "church history" as identified exclusively by your list of institutions.

They have operated since then to present times under one motto:

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

What any "church historian" declares as "new doctrine" as being introduced or added to genuine faith may apply to institutions, but not to the true remnant (located within and without) - the invisible Church universal - the Body of Christ. Our faith has remained unchanged - because He Who is in us never changes.

Still, you might give it some thought. The doctrines you are relying on for your interpretation, are all of relatively recent origin, post the Refomation and Sola Scriptura and found only amongst Evangelical Protestants.

Totally bogus. Have you actually read the NT?

Maybe you're right, who knows? But I'd like to see you try that on with, say, the Coptic Patriarch. I would like to see his reaction when you tell him that he and his church have been calling the Bible a lie for 2000 years.

The title of patriarch should intimidate my God? Or that of pope?

God's Word says that His children are ambassadors for Christ. We don't even need fancy robes or comical hats to invite anyone to place their devotion to the Person of Jesus Christ or to the trustworthiness of HIS Word. Sackcloth is fine, Holmes!

As for the coptic church, I have no idea what they teach nor do I care to learn. If its anything other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ - including that His Word is trustworthy - along with His promises (including, you betcha, a personal relationship with Him via indwelling of His Holy Spirit) - then yes - they are calling God a liar.

And 2000 years is small potatoes. As mentioned, the celebrated majority of the populace - heading by the broad path that leads to destruction - have been calling God a liar ~ 6000 years now.

That statement reflects the belief of all Christians, not just you and those you fellowship with.

Er, here you say all "christians" agree and elsewhere that they don't - which is it?

Is that kinda like the guy who said earlier in this thread (choking back tears) that all geologists agree? Kinda like all evolutionists agree? Do ya'll really think we all just fell off the turnip truck?

The whole concept of "inerrant" is a standard you impose on scripture.

Do you believe these Scriptures as they are plainly stated, yes or no? If not, how do you interpret them?

Isaiah 40:8 ESV
"The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever."

Matthew 24:35 NIV
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

John 16:13 NIV
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

And the Word Himself (John 1) - Jesus Christ...

Hebrews 13:8 NIV
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Your "error" is nothing more than a deviation from your chosen interpretation, your notion of "what God meant to say."

Question. Are you willing to take any Scripture and declare, "This is what God says"?

Again, they are not calling God a liar, you are accusing them of it because they don't agree with your interpretion. But you don't own the Christian religion or the Bible, and you are in no position to dictate to other Christians what that are supposed to believe about it.

So is *anybody's* interpretation valid from your viewpoint?

And far be it from me that I would claim to be the sole interpreter of Scripture. If that is what anybody believes I'm claiming, then they aren't paying attention. I've stated it before, my word is certainly fallible, and I also stumble in reflecting His love - but He and His Word do not. Ever.

Having said that - all genuine believers indwelt and guided by the same Holy Spirit do agree on the essentials. And I've stated clearly what we believe they are. Exactly why I have confidence to proclaim HIS Gospel, particularly because that is what He commands His disciples to do. One can sit on the sidelines and merely take potshots at those bold enough to quote Him, but should consider that they risk this warning:

Luke 9:26 NIV
"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

The question is, who is being deceived?

That's easy...

2 Corinthians 4:1-8 ESV

"Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God."

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

"For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

My sincere prayer is that we will all simply take God at His Word. It really isn't as difficult as some would make it seem. Merely the faith of a child...

God bless!

biblegateway.com

 

[Joseph G]

How is my "worldview" "limited". I mearly described what science is? Have you ever done any actual science?

Which has nothing to do with not publishing pseudoscience in scientific journals.

This is not the "biblical prophecy" section. It is the science section. Try to stick to the topic.

Yawn...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to dictionary, fossils are the remnants of dead lifeforms. You invent your own 'living fossils'

Living fossil - an organism (such as a horseshoe crab or a ginkgo tree) that has remained essentially unchanged from earlier geologic times and whose close relatives are usually extinct

It's not a term that I've made up in the slightest. You even cited it in post #22, but now you say I'm making it up, which leads me to believe that you don't know what you're arguing against.

Doesn't evolution say that lifeforms evolve and change? Are you shifting goal posts?

I ask someone the following questions, which I ask you since you seem to be shifting definition of evolution.

1. What is evolution according to the view, and what are the main points? Although i heard it before, but let's hear from you, assuming you represent their definition correctly.
I know evolution doesn't say there is no God, but it implies so. Do you think evolution implies no God? How then do you define evolution, or explain the main points?

2. According to evolution, can one kind of living lifeform change to another over a long time, for example can an amphibian gradually change into a reptile? If yes, why are there no fossils of in-between species? I believe the same kind can evolve within themselves for example: there are many different breeds of horses ) but they cannot cross over ( eg: a crocodile does not become a komodo). Don't say such statements show my ignorance, but its a genuine question because I have heard evolution say so many things, so perhaps you can clarify.

I will add a 3d question: Do you believe there is no God? By God, i don't mean an intelligence like the economic invisible hand. I mean a real God who sent Jesus to earth. (Don't debate about Jesus yet, stick to evolution)

1) Evolution is the change of genetics in a population in response to environmental pressures. Evolution says nothing about God because it simply describes the process by which life changes in response to an ever-changing world.

2) According to the theory of evolution, yes, an amphibian can become a reptile, and there are examples of these transitional fossils are easily found. Tiktaalik is the best example. The rest of your comment is ignorant: the different horse breeds are still horses, which is why you can crossbreed horses to make thoroughbreds, Shire horses and destriers, but a komodo dragon is not the same species of reptile as a crocodile is. They look similar in body plan, but they're two entirely different creatures.

Your third question does not follow in the slightest. Accepting evolution as fact and accepting God are not two mutually exclusive things. They can exist together.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yawn...

You're a very rude individual, Joseph.

 

[roman2819]

1) Evolution is the change of genetics in a population in response to environmental pressures. Evolution says nothing about God because it simply describes the process by which life changes in response to an ever-changing world.

How do you reconcile your words above with what you said before "The fact that many creatures that lived in history didn't look too dissimilar from modern day animals is not a problem for evolution in the slightest". If they don't too dissimilar, doesn't it mean there is no meaningful change?

2) According to the theory of evolution, yes, an amphibian can become a reptile, and there are examples of these transitional fossils are easily found. Tiktaalik is the best example. The rest of your comment is ignorant: the different horse breeds are still horses, which is why you can crossbreed horses to make thoroughbreds, Shire horses and destriers, but a komodo dragon is not the same species of reptile as a crocodile is. They look similar in body plan, but they're two entirely different creatures.

If species can cross over from amphibian to reptile, then why are there almost no fossils of cross-over lifeforms found? If they used to exist before there should be plenty of them isn't, not just 1 tiktaalik

 

[Joseph G]

You're a very rude individual, Joseph.

*smile*

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How do you reconcile your words above with what you said before "The fact that many creatures that lived in history didn't look too dissimilar from modern day animals is not a problem for evolution in the slightest". If they don't too dissimilar, doesn't it mean there is no meaningful change?

They can be easily reconciled. Because they don't have to change everything. Throughout the existence of reptilian animals, there are always animals that look like crocodiles. Why? Because it's a body shape that works best for that particular animal. Why do fish look the same throughout history? Because it's a body plan that works. If it doesn't work, it doesn't need to be altered. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, as with all things, but evolution works with what works well enough for a species to survive. It's why fish, sharks, dolphins and whales all share the same roundabout body design - because it works.

If species can cross over from amphibian to reptile, then why are there almost no fossils of cross-over lifeforms found? If they used to exist before there should be plenty of them isn't, not just 1 tiktaalik

Because not every animal that dies is able to fossilize and not every fossil is able to survive to the modern day due to the Earth's ever-changing geology.

And for the record, archaeologists found 60 separate fossils of Tiktaalik, not just 1.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

*smile*

Again: still rude.

 

[roman2819]

They can be easily reconciled. Because they don't have to change everything. Throughout the existence of reptilian animals, there are always animals that look like crocodiles. Why? Because it's a body shape that works best for that particular animal. Why do fish look the same throughout history? Because it's a body plan that works. If it doesn't work, it doesn't need to be altered. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, as with all things, but evolution works with what works well enough for a species to survive. It's why fish, sharks, dolphins and whales all share the same roundabout body design - because it works.

If there is so little changes, and almost no changes can be found among DEAD fossils, doesn't it imply that evolution didn't happen?

Because not every animal that dies is able to fossilize and not every fossil is able to survive to the modern day due to the Earth's ever-changing geology.

And for the record, archaeologists found 60 separate fossils of Tiktaalik, not just 1.

Your claim is contradicted by the discovery of very old fossils that look like their descendants' skeletal remains of today. Since they survived earth's ever-changing geology, so why wouldn't 'your' fossils (which were supposedly different from their ancestors) be found?

I mean one tiktaalik species or type, not 1 specimen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If there is so little changes, and almost no changes can be found among DEAD fossils, doesn't it imply that evolution didn't happen?

Your commentary makes no sense because looking at fossils shows that opposite: there many instances of animals that do not look like modern extant species.

Your claim is contradicted by the discovery of very old fossils that look like their descendants' skeletal remains of today. Since they survived earth's ever-changing geology, so why wouldn't 'your' fossils (which were supposedly different from their ancestors) be found?

I mean one tiktaalik species or type, not 1 specimen.

Again, you're commentary makes no sense. Every animal that existed is a transitional, between those which came before them and those that follow.

Have you actually endeavored to do any research yourself or are you just content to ask people on a forum and tell them that they're wrong?

 

[roman2819]

Your commentary makes no sense because looking at fossils shows that opposite: there many instances of animals that do not look like modern extant species.

Again, you're commentary makes no sense. Every animal that existed is a transitional, between those which came before them and those that follow.

Have you actually endeavored to do any research yourself or are you just content to ask people on a forum and tell them that they're wrong?

When you can't answer, you will say the question make no sense.

Why then would anyone said evolution happen when they cannot find significant evidence that lifeforms did change?

I said before: A layman like myself can only understand the basics of evolution. I do not pretend to understand deep technical terms, and can only reply on the knowledge of people that have delved into into, such as Dr Werner (that you don't believe), Now I see that even people who insist that evolution is true cannot even produce meaningful or basic evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you can't answer, you will say the question make no sense.

Why then would anyone said evolution happen when they cannot find significant changes?

I said before: A layman like myself can only understand the basics of evolution. I do not pretend to understand deep technical terms, and can only reply on the knowledge of people that have delved into into, such as Dr Werner (that you don't believe), Now I see that even people who insist that evolution is true cannot even produce meaningful or basic evidence.

No, I don't answer because your question doesn't make sense to me. The theory of evolution doesn't say that every animal should be a hodge-podge of different body shapes for each generation, no half-this and half-that. That's not how biology works on any level. If a body plan for a species works and only needs minor variation to suit the environment (again, I talk about sharks, turtles/tortoises, crocodiles, fish, and even snakes, frogs and salamanders) then there is no need for major changes to the body plan. Minor changes will be as the ability to produce live young instead of eggs, being able to spend more time on land than in water or even becoming arboreal (tree-dwelling) instead of solely living on land. Such things are hard to tell from the fossil record because all we have are the bones.

I have given you evidence and even asked if you've looked for the evidence by yourself but you've just dismissed me out of hand each turn.

 

[roman2819]

No, I don't answer because your question doesn't make sense to me. The theory of evolution doesn't say that every animal should be a hodge-podge of different body shapes for each generation, no half-this and half-that. That's not how biology works on any level. If a body plan for a species works and only needs minor variation to suit the environment (again, I talk about sharks, turtles/tortoises, crocodiles, fish, and even snakes, frogs and salamanders) then there is no need for major changes to the body plan. Minor changes will be as the ability to produce live young instead of eggs, being able to spend more time on land than in water or even becoming arboreal (tree-dwelling) instead of solely living on land. Such things are hard to tell from the fossil record because all we have are the bones.

I have given you evidence and even asked if you've looked for the evidence by yourself but you've just dismissed me out of hand each turn.

A answered your last statement by saying that only know the basics of evolution.

So did evolution claim that life begins by itself? Or is silent about this?