To Believers, Is This Evidence For Satan?

Charles Kanyuga said:

Satan does not care whether you prove his existence or not but he care that we are sons of God. He want to preach provable points to you on how you may not be a son of God. Do not waste too much energy on debates that adds no value to your position, stand tall like Jesus and say I can only do what I see my father do.

Click to expand...

I think Satan does care because he does not want you think about him. He does not want you to recognize Satan's existence is important and what he has done. We usually think he tempts us into sin. What I am saying is he can also mislead you by masquerading as the angel of light.

Isn't this true? Many people do not think about Satan nor think that he exists. Even atheists focus on criticizing God or portray him as evil. Believers should not discount Satan and his powers.

What I am saying now is to refer to what the Bible and Jesus says about Satan. Satan is equal with Jesus. He is the antiChrist. He is the god of the world and prince of the power of the air, so he's quite powerful.

Even though I recognized several weeks ago that Satan rebels in everything that God wrote, I found that it is a difficult argument to say Satan made this lie up and that you are misled. It's a self-defeating argument even if it true. People believe what they want to believe. They cannot help it.

Brightmoon said:

James , James Bond , I gave you that info repeatedly. Limbs form by using the most of the same genetic toolbox that forms body patterning from head to anus. All bilaterians use most of the same genes . Your misunderstanding of and ignorance about evolution is not a disproof of it. SMH

Click to expand...

I got that "limbs form by using the most of the same genetic toolbox." Isn't this what happens with natural selection, artificial selection, epigenetics, and GMO within a species? I don't think I misunderstand and am ignorant of that. I studied it and compared it to creation science and what the Bible states. I may not keep up with all that's happened since biology, geology, zoology, and paleontology are not my field, except I know birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. We just reached different conclusions from the factual evidence. Much of evolution was debunked from 2007 - 2011.

SkyWriting said:

Those are simply technical details. The moon lights the night sky quite regular.
The earth is practically stationary. Meaning, for all practical purposes, it doesn't even spin.

Click to expand...

The moon is always there even in the daytime. It's just more difficult to see. If it's cloudy, the clouds are still there at night. Again, it's more difficult to see. This reinforces what I have been saying about Satan. He is difficult to see as he is masquerading as the angel of light haha. I guess it's sarcasm now as this thread has not gone the way I envisioned.


As for the Earth spinning, it is spinning quite fast. I don't think we can travel on land that fast, but not sure what the land speed record is today. I learned that as a child. Watch the vid. You can see it.

The Barbarian said:

The less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers.

Click to expand...

My article superseded your article. And I showed Haeckel committed fraud to fool an entire generation with his bird (in this case chicken) embryo -- Haeckel's drawings. It also showed the correct one. Here is another article -- Chicken embryo. Where is your dinosaur embryo haha?

I've already said if you can re-engineer a bird back into one of your tiny dinosaurs, then I'll believe your birds from dinosaur thesis.

SkyWriting said:

I'm aware of the moon in the day. So were the writers of scripture. But it lights the night sky at times when the sun doesn't. The earth cannot be perceived by humans as spinning even though we stand on it.

The equator spins at about 1000 miles per hour. The fastest vehicle, 763 MPH

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself which was my point. The moon doesn't have its own light; it's just reflecting the sun. You should have realized the Earth was spinning fast when you were a child. That's taught in elementary school.

Why is it that we cannot perceive the Earth spinning? To make it simple, I'll make it multiple choice. Is it because of Einstein's special relativity or Newton's laws of motion?

The Barbarian said:

No, you merely misunderstood it.

Click to expand...

I actually read my article and compared it to yours. I understood that you were wrong.

The Barbarian said:

The drawings aren't used in science. Creationists get really upset when textbooks use actual photographs of embryos, showing the same things.

Click to expand...

The drawings are still being used in today's science textbooks. Even Ernst Mayr, the elder statesman of evolution, used them in his 2001 book. The knowledgeable evolutionists are embarrassed beyond belief, but some continue to use in their textbooks.

As for your embryos, lmao. Those are fossils. You didn't even understand my little joke.

Brightmoon said:

Uh James, immature birds still in the eggshell are embryos . I have Mayr’s book I don’t remember seeing HAECKEL’S drawings unless he used them to illustrate a minor quibble within the science community at that earlier time . Modern books either use photos or they’ve redrawn the pictures . It’s not easy to see these feature in a photo which is why they get drawn. The same thing happens with some pictures of fossils. Photos aren’t always the best way to show features of a fossil to someone who isn’t actually researching it .Drawn Biological , paleontological and medical reproductions HAVE to be accurate otherwise what’s the point in doing them.

Click to expand...

I see. The photos contradict Haeckel's drawings, but one still needs the drawings.

Great. I'm sure you have the hardcover, first edition. If Mayr doesn't have any of Haeckel's drawings in it, then my apologies.

That said, does he discuss embryology? This is highly controversial between creas vs. evos and gets to the crux of the issue. Do you agree that Darwin did not come up with ToE as widely believed? What he came up with was to explain how evolution happened. He was convinced that "embryological homology was the strongest single class of facts to support his views."

Thus, Haeckel's drawings to riff off Dawin's views. (Now, if you have the Audubon, 1st edition...)

"Modern embryology has instead challenged the Darwinian theory of common descent by illustrating that seemingly homologous structures, such as the mammalian forelimb, developed along different pathways, and are therefore not homologous at all."

Embryology - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

The Barbarian said:

I used to review science textbooks for some districts. Haven't seen that, ever. Show us from one in the last 50 years. (prediction: no such example will be forthcoming)

Click to expand...

Did you review the following?

That having been said, here is the list:

• Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (Columbia University Press, 2013).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Jeffrey A. Isaacson, Kimberly G. Lyle-Ippolito, Andrew T. Storfer, Inquiry Into Life (13th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
• Peter H. Raven, George B. Johnson, Kenneth A. Mason, Jonathan B. Losos, and Susan R. Singer, Biology (9th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
• Adaptive Curriculum online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011.
• Rice University online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011.
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill, 10th ed., 2010).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill 2007).
• BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2006).
• National Geographic, Alton Biggs, Lucy Daniel, Edward Ortleb, Peter Rillero, Dinah Zike, Life Science (McGraw Hill, Glencoe, 2005).

Here are some slightly older ones:

• Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition, 2003).
• Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M. Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003).
• Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003).
• Peter H. Raven and George B. Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002).
• Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001).
• Holt Science and Technology: Life Science (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2001).
• Burton S. Guttman, Biology (McGraw Hill, 1999).
• Peter H. Raven and George B. Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999).
• Albert Towle, Modern Biology (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1999).
• William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999).
• Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998).
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998).
• Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998).
• Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998).
• Judith Goodenough, Robert A. Wallace, and Betty McGuire, Human Biology: Personal, Environmental, and Social Concerns, 582 (Harcourt College Publishers, 1998).
• Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill, 1st edition, 1998).
• Helene Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Invitation to Biology (5th Ed., Worth Publishers, 1994).
• Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, Biochemistry (2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, 1995).
• Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995).
• Robert H. Dott and Donald R. Prothero, Evolution of the Earth (Mcgraw-Hill Education, Fifth Edition, 1994).
• Bruce Alberts, et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd ed, Garland, 1994).
• Joseph S. Levin and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath, 2nd ed., 1994).
• Joseph S. Levin and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath, 1991).
• Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991).
• Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (3rd ed, Sinaeur, 1985).
• Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (2nd ed, Sinaeur, 1988).
• Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (1st ed, Sinaeur, 1985).

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/

Here's something that may help settle the matter once and for all, but I'm not happy because the researcher is an evolutionist. He already is stating if there isn't a match, then it will be exciting where his finding will fall in the tree of life. Is he going to fit the evidence to fit ToE?

“This DNA can be captured, sequenced and then used to identify that creature by comparing the sequence obtained to large databases of known genetic sequences from 100,000s of different organisms – if an exact match can't be found we can generally figure out where on the tree of life that sequence fits,” he told the outlet.

Gemmell said he’d be surprised if there’s any evidence of DNA sequences similar to those of a large extinct marine reptile, but he's eager to see what his team will find."

...

"The 51-year-old scientist said he isn’t a Nessie believer – which some theorize is a long-necked plesiosaur that somehow survived the dinosaur extinction – but is eager to take people on an adventure and communicate some science along the way."

Kiwi scientists to lead new hunt for Loch Ness monster

Do scientists have the DNA of a plesiosaur? AIG says that there is no DNA from the creature, so it won't be found. However, that is one of the main thesis.

Furthermore, it appears the findings may have been delayed because Gemmell wanted a tv documentary, but they would not pick it up. Likely, this is because they would not have found Nessie as a plesiosaur. What do you think it is?

If it's not a dinosaur, then they'll say it's some kind of new fish or marine animal is my guess and try to fit it in as as a common ancestor.

LOCH NESS MONSTER: Loch Ness eDNA results to be published in September

The Barbarian said:

I'll bet you a chocolate chip cookie that one doesn't present Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution, either.

Click to expand...

You said no examples will be forthcoming and thus, I provided the examples.

Where did I say that Haeckel's drawings were evidence for evolution? I said it was evidence for Satan!!! Do you want to bet on that? I'll enjoy my cookie in the afterlife. I even said Darwin didn't come up with the ToE even though most of us believe that. I did, too, at one point. However, all Dawin did was explain evolution. Do you acknowledge this is the truth? Haeckel came in and did his recapitulation drawings to make a name for himself and fool an entire generation.

The link explains, "list of textbooks that use Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, which since the 19th century have been used to support the hypothesis of universal common ancestry." Thus, stick to just common ancestor and tree of life instead of evolution. It's fallacy of slothful induction.

Brightmoon said:

Evolutionnews is a creationist website. It does fool people into thinking that they actually give accurate information about evolution

Click to expand...

Just set up a straw man. And you validate your points with evolutionist websites.

Evo news isn't creationist, either. Do you understand who they are?