Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Evolution is the biggest lie ever (almost perhaps). I guess now i should keep believing this and you in evolution. God bless.
You can say that as much as you want but the evidence fills those giant buildings we call museums and it all says you're wrong. The difference is I accept evolution and you believe whatever it is you believe. I don't have to believe. I don't need faith. I have evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Sorry, merely acknowledging our animal nature is not a reduction in our status.

Then why does Trump call African Americans, animals? Is it to obtain a superior position to them? Of course it is. Calling Humans (children of God) Apes is the mark of an infidel.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
To reduce man's status to that of an animal. I suppose it's necessary since every over bearing authoritarian tries it when they get the power. Satan is the father of lies and Trump is the modern preacher of this lie. See if you can count his number since he insists that the meeting with North Korea is on 6/12/18?

Evols should re-think their false statement that Humans evolved from animals since that is the biggest Lie ever told. Amen?
We didn't just evolve from animals, we are animals. Just intelligent ones.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Then why does Trump call African Americans, animals? Is it to obtain a superior position to them? Of course it is. Calling Humans (children of God) Apes is the mark of an infidel.
He does it in a way to separate African Americans from others. That's all. "They" are animals. It's a cheap way to keep "them" over "there" and "us" over "here."
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,549
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,478.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Anyways me receiving the holy spirit in church was the nail in the coffin for: Other religions and evolution. And all the other assumtions you can make after having proof of God, like the bible is probably all true too. I wish you all can have that experience and find God.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Anyways me receiving the holy spirit in church was the nail in the coffin for: Other religions and evolution. And all the other assumtions you can make after having proof of God, like the bible is probably all true too. I wish you all can have that experience and find God.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Anyways me receiving the holy spirit in church was the nail in the coffin for: Other religions and evolution. And all the other assumtions you can make after having proof of God, like the bible is probably all true too. I wish you all can have that experience and find God.
If the Bible were all true then there would be physical evidence of it. There would be evidence of the world having been covered by a global flood. There is not. There would be evidence of the world being 6,000 years old. It is not. The Bible is wrong from the very first sentence. It says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. No, that didn't happen. The earth was not created in the beginning. The earth is made from heavy elements that did not exist in the early universe. To get heavy elements a star has to go nova or supernova. That means it was billions of years before a planet like the earth could have existed. The lifetime of a star. THEN and only then did the elements exist in the universe to have planets. And yes, I know the argument, God can do anything. But God does not DO anything. God uses natural processes, doesn't he?

So you can say you received the holy spirit and that's great. But you can't say the Bible is all true because of that. Go find evidence and get back to me.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,549
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,478.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If the Bible were all true then there would be physical evidence of it. There would be evidence of the world having been covered by a global flood. There is not. There would be evidence of the world being 6,000 years old. It is not. The Bible is wrong from the very first sentence. It says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. No, that didn't happen. The earth was not created in the beginning. The earth is made from heavy elements that did not exist in the early universe. To get heavy elements a star has to go nova or supernova. That means it was billions of years before a planet like the earth could have existed. The lifetime of a star. THEN and only then did the elements exist in the universe to have planets. And yes, I know the argument, God can do anything. But God does not DO anything. God uses natural processes, doesn't he?

So you can say you received the holy spirit and that's great. But you can't say the Bible is all true because of that. Go find evidence and get back to me.

I actually believe in the old earth and the bible can be interpreted as such. I can testify to death about the existence of the Holy spirit and Jesus, they are real to me and to a lot of people. And natural process or not there is no such thing about lucky enough to have all we have. Have you heard about the fine tunning argument? that is not a bad one.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I actually believe in the old earth and the bible can be interpreted as such. I can testify to death about the existence of the Holy spirit and Jesus, they are real to me and to a lot of people. And natural process or not there is no such thing about lucky enough to have all we have. Have you heard about the fine tunning argument? that is not a bad one.
That's nice. You have fun doing that ok? I can testify to Endogenous Retrovirii and Deoxyribonucleic Acid. They are real to everyone. You have to stop saying "luck" and "lucky" because it's your misunderstanding that makes you think things have to be lucky to evolve. In short, mutations happen, they either help or hinder an organism. That organism can then either pass on its genes more easily or not. That's it. No luck involved.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,549
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,478.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That's nice. You have fun doing that ok? I can testify to Endogenous Retrovirii and Deoxyribonucleic Acid. They are real to everyone. You have to stop saying "luck" and "lucky" because it's your misunderstanding that makes you think things have to be lucky to evolve. In short, mutations happen, they either help or hinder an organism. That organism can then either pass on its genes more easily or not. That's it. No luck involved.

Well i´m not going to discuss more with you because i don´t like to discuss like this.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well i´m not going to discuss more with you because i don´t like to discuss like this.
I'm sure it's hard. Please stop using the argument that evolution is a lie because it's "lucky" and that can't be. You've been shown how it's a lie and to continue to use it is lying.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
here you go. if we will find a 70my human fossil we can just claim that it just didnt leaved any fossil in the last 60-70 my, like in the coelacanths case. simple and easy.
The coelacanth situation is still not the same as what you are describing for humans. The evidence for coelacanths is like a sandwhich that's just bread with air in between; we have evidence for them existing 60-70 million years ago, and we have evidence for them existing now in the form of living species, but the fossil record in between those time frames is missing. At no point is there a coelacanth fossil that predates all other vertebrates. The human fossil record is like a sandwich with most of the desirable contents between the slices of bread, perhaps it could use a little more mustard or something, but otherwise is essentially complete. A human fossil dating 70 million years would be like the bottom slice of that sandwich suddenly teleporting 100 meters above the rest of the sandwhich, causing all of the contents to spill out.

But hey, let's bring genetics into the party, since a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil doesn't fit with genetics either. Remember, mutation frequency is a calculable number, and for our species, that number is 40-60 mutations for each individual on average. Humans existing for that long would demand that chimpanzees be much more genetically dissimilar to us than to other apes by virtue of mutation rate.


first: if its possible with 3 species its also possible with many more.
It has happened with others, but your claim demands ALL but two. If your claims matched reality, in that mammals could independently evolve multiple times, that situation would have to be extremely common. Yet, you are incapable of showing it has occurred even once. Where is my strawberry with mammalian hair genes?

second: i also gave you an example of a gene that is share with a group of far species but not in many species between them.
Again, your claim demands ALL, not many. ALL. How many times do I have to say it in order for you to understand that?

and in this case, as we can see- they solve it by convergent loss. as i said: no problem for evolution.
Again, show me convergent loss that results in all but two distant lineages HAVING the gene, and you will have made your point. Until you do, you haven't.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I actually believe in the old earth and the bible can be interpreted as such. I can testify to death about the existence of the Holy spirit and Jesus, they are real to me and to a lot of people. And natural process or not there is no such thing about lucky enough to have all we have. Have you heard about the fine tunning argument? that is not a bad one.
Fine tuning ...

https://g.redditmedia.com/wcuo20WYm...nted=false&s=4152566ae509dc21bc0339532d93c573
wcuo20WYmcGHzFw2EyMSp-Sli4rcNQXCd07TT1HAe4M.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Humans existing for that long would demand that chimpanzees be much more genetically dissimilar to us than to other apes by virtue of mutation rate.

no problem. in this case we can claim for different molecular clock rate, or we can claim for a different phylogeny.


Again, show me convergent loss that results in all but two distant lineages HAVING the gene, and you will have made your point. Until you do, you haven't.

i dont need to. its a theoretical situation to show that evolution cant be false even in this case. i showed it by the fact that we can always claim for a converngent loss. so e ven if we will find a cat with a huma gene we can always say that thise gene was lost in all other genomes between cat and human, or we can claim for lgt or any other scenario we can think of.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then why does Trump call African Americans, animals? Is it to obtain a superior position to them? Of course it is. Calling Humans (children of God) Apes is the mark of an infidel.

Written by an entity that respirates, eats, uses organic muscles for moving about, and expels organic waste.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
We didn't just evolve from animals, we are animals. Just intelligent ones.

False, since we are God's children destined to rule worlds and have dominion or rule over every other living creature. Gen 1:28 Just as it is a shame to call one of Obama's advisers an Ape, it is just as ignorant and racist to call one of God's children an animal. Only Godless Science and those who worship therein commit such blasphemy.

BTW, animals are innocent. Are you?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
He does it in a way to separate African Americans from others. That's all. "They" are animals. It's a cheap way to keep "them" over "there" and "us" over "here."

Trump does it to put common folk under his feet. It's the same with other despots, like billionaires millionaires and other such two bit dictators who THINK of self only.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
If the Bible were all true then there would be physical evidence of it.

There is but it's really hard to get a dead sinner to understand God's Spiritual Truth.

There would be evidence of the world having been covered by a global flood. There is not.

The Bible doesn't say that our world was covered by a global flood. It says that Adam's small firmament (miles in diameter) sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago. That's the only global flood in man's history. It's also when Human civilization began on our planet.

There would be evidence of the world being 6,000 years old. It is not. The Bible is wrong from the very first sentence. It says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. No, that didn't happen. The earth was not created in the beginning. The earth is made from heavy elements that did not exist in the early universe. To get heavy elements a star has to go nova or supernova. That means it was billions of years before a planet like the earth could have existed. The lifetime of a star. THEN and only then did the elements exist in the universe to have planets.

You are woefully ignorant of what the Bible teaches. The Bible doesn't say the world is only 6k years old That's an ancient Hebrew theologian's view. Adam's world was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 The present world and the 3rd Heaven were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 You don't even know that we live in a Multiverse. Do you?

Adam's world was immersed in Water on the 2nd Day, long before the Lord took some of the air, dust and water and inflated it on the 3rd Day, some 13.77 Billion years ago in man's time. That is God's Truth in Genesis which is hidden from ALL unbelievers. Amen?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.