A thread on evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, and the only thing you have presented is disagreement, like Republicans did for 8 years because they are racist. When it comes time for them to actually do something, we find out how really silly they are, since they are all bark. Can't you find ANY evidence to refute me? Of course not. Perhaps you could find a more knowledgable evo. God Bless you

Wrong, I have already refuted you. You cannot be reasoned with . I told you that I would only try to help you.

And Aman, your ideas are so "out there" that no evidence is needed to refute you. You refute yourself since you can find no evidence nor support for your beliefs.

There is no "debating" you. There is only correcting you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is show me my error. I don't think you can. IF you could, you would have done it long ago. God Bless you

Your errors have been shown countless times. You do not pay attention. You are now complaining because you know that you are wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Amen. I know Scripture and I can understand Genesis, which does NOT agree with the changeable half-truths presented by Science AND Theology. A good example is the FACT that most theologians teach that God made everything 6,000 years ago in 6-24 hour days. Do you believe theologians?

Who would "most theologians" be? Not B B Warfield, not James Montgomery Boice, not Derek Kidner...... None of them exactly noted for their liberal credentials.

 

[Herman Hedning]

What do you think I'm doing? I'm seeking a T.V. Evangelist who has so much money, all he wants is more OR a scientist in search of a new grant. Since Adam's firmament would PROVE that God is real and that the Theory of Evolution is completely bogus, I believe one or the other will find the Greatest Treasure on Earth. Know any Evangelists? Or greedy people? Send them my way and God Bless you.

Fantastic, but what have you done to find such people yourself? Surely you are working towards revealing this amazing discovery with all your might - not just talking about it on discussion forums?

 

[Aman777]

What do you imagine that your babble has to do with science? Because I can tell you that the answer is that it has nothing to do with science, and precious little to do with theology.

Science searches for the Truth and the Bible shows us God's Truth. IF the Bible is true, and it is, then it MUST agree with every discovery of Science and History, and it does. That's what I show and no one can seem to refute me. Can you? Of course not, but go ahead and try scientifically, scripturally or historically.

Nobody except you imagines that God created life prior to creating the universe. The biblical support for that idea is less than nothing, and the scientific support for that idea is also less than nothing.

Genesis 1:8 shows that Adam's firmament, which God called "Heaven" was made on the 2nd Day, by GOD, the Trinity. Genesis 2:4 shows that other "HeavenS" were made on the 3rd Day by Lord God, the Son of God. The present 2nd Heaven and the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2 were NOT made by God, but by Lord God. IOW, Adam's first Heaven was made long before the Heavens which Jesus made on the 3rd Day. Amen? Please try to refute that Scriptural Fact which is currently being confirmed by Astronomers. News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's global edition | The Guardian › Science › Astronomy God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Who would "most theologians" be? Not B B Warfield, not James Montgomery Boice, not Derek Kidner...... None of them exactly noted for their liberal credentials.

I know none of them since most of them study the ancient Hebrew meanings of the words and don't seek to find the Agreement with the latest discoveries of Science, which God tells us will confirm His Truth in the last days. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Fantastic, but what have you done to find such people yourself? Surely you are working towards revealing this amazing discovery with all your might - not just talking about it on discussion forums?

I've contacted some of them but the Presbyterian teaches Presbyterian Theology which doesn't agree with Science and Baptists teach the "Baptist" view. They are limited in what they can teach. Some laughed, but many had NO idea what Genesis actually says but only what their group teaches it says.

Online, some Christians won't believe me because they think I agree with scientists too much, while scientists think I'm just a Christian with weird ideas. That's why I have decided to see if some greedy person, with a desire to become one of the richest men on Earth, will find Adam's firmament in Lake Van. Who do you think will find it first? A preacher or a scientist? God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Wrong, I have already refuted you. You cannot be reasoned with . I told you that I would only try to help you.

And Aman, your ideas are so "out there" that no evidence is needed to refute you. You refute yourself since you can find no evidence nor support for your beliefs.

There is no "debating" you. There is only correcting you.

Did I miss the actual evidence you presented? or the correction? I'm sorry, but you sound like a politician to me. They never answer questions. Do you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Genesis 1:8 shows that Adam's firmament, which God called "Heaven" was made on the 2nd Day, by GOD, the Trinity. Genesis 2:4 shows that other "HeavenS" were made on the 3rd Day by Lord God, the Son of God

The phrase translated as "Lord God" in Genesis 2.4 reads as "Yahweh God" in the original Hebrew. That is the kind of thing which happens when you imagine that you can be your own scholar, without the years of formal study and training real scholars have to undergo.

And your attempts to be your own physicist are not likely to be any more successful.

 

[Aman777]

Your errors have been shown countless times.

False and you cannot show ANY post where I have been refuted (proven wrong). IF you can produce such a post, I will be happy to apologize. Failure to do so, will reveal your true position and everyone will see your false accusation. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

The phrase translated as "Lord God" in Genesis 2.4 reads as "Yahweh God" in the original Hebrew. That is the kind of thing which happens when you imagine that you can be your own scholar, without the years of formal study and training real scholars have to undergo.

And your attempts to be your own physicist are not likely to be any more successful.

False, since there is NO Yahweh. Some "scholar" added vowels to YHWH, which is a SINGULAR Name for Jesus in the Old Testament. When Jesus returns, He has a name written which no man knew but He Himself. Rev 19:12 I believe the name is YHWH. YHWH/Jesus told Noah to take 7 of the clean Gen 7:2 and 2 of the unclean animals BUT God (Elohim-a PLURAL name for the Trinity) told Noah to take 2. Gen 6:19 Haven't you noticed the difference?

I have NEVER claimed to be a Physicist but I can read their views and see the pictures of the result of us "bumping" into another Universe. God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I miss the actual evidence you presented? or the correction? I'm sorry, but you sound like a politician to me. They never answer questions. Do you?

You probably did. You are so far out there that you can't see reality.

Once again, you are so wrong there simply is no debating you. I will gladly help you understand how science is done. And since you brought up the subject of evidence would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence? You clearly have a lack of understanding in that subject.

 

[lesliedellow]

False, since there is NO Yahweh. Some "scholar" added vowels to YHWH, which is a SINGULAR Name for Jesus

No, YHWH is not the name for Jesus in the Old Testament; YHWH is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be". Hence Exodus 3.14. You really should stop trying to make stuff up as you go along.

I have NEVER claimed to be a Physicist but I can read their views and see the pictures of the result of us "bumping" into another Universe. God Bless you

Yes, well looking at a picture of a heart or kidneys does not a doctor make, and it would not justify you in writing screeds of nonsense about the way in which liver function is described in Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False and you cannot show ANY post where I have been refuted (proven wrong). IF you can produce such a post, I will be happy to apologize. Failure to do so, will reveal your true position and everyone will see your false accusation. God Bless you

Please, don't post nonsense if you even want a discussion. You do not acknowledge or recognize your errors when they are pointed out to you. At this point you can't demand. You may only politely inquire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science searches for the Truth and the Bible shows us God's Truth. IF the Bible is true, and it is, then it MUST agree with every discovery of Science and History, and it does. That's what I show and no one can seem to refute me. Can you? Of course not, but go ahead and try scientifically, scripturally or historically.

This is an example of a gross error of yours. If science disagrees with the Bible you claim it is not true. You can't even support your claim that the Bible is true. You just demand that it is and then you misinterpret it for your own uses as you did in the rest of this post, which I am ignoring.

 

[TBDude65]

There is a very simple observation that should be pointed out as going along with this: if you don't believe the scientific evidence and arguments out there for the Big Bang or abiogenesis or evolution, etc, that still provides no support (neither evidential or circumstantial) for any alternative presented by religions. And in addition to this, there is a lot of data published in the scientific literature that would need to be explained outside the context of the theories and/or hypotheses they support.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I've contacted some of them but the Presbyterian teaches Presbyterian Theology which doesn't agree with Science and Baptists teach the "Baptist" view. They are limited in what they can teach. Some laughed, but many had NO idea what Genesis actually says but only what their group teaches it says.

It has to be frustrating.

Online, some Christians won't believe me because they think I agree with scientists too much

That's probably not good, is it?

That's why I have decided to see if some greedy person, with a desire to become one of the richest men on Earth, will find Adam's firmament in Lake Van.

Good luck with that! I mean it would take a brave greedy person to brave the Lake Van Monster! (Lake Van Monster - Wikipedia)

Who do you think will find it first? A preacher or a scientist? God Bless you

I think that Televangelists have a better track record of avarice but probably not a lot of interest in up-front funding (hence we have Peter Popfoff Miracle Spring Water). Apparently being caught scamming people with radio transmitters many years ago was too much of an investment so now he's just going for plain water. Jim Bakker did spend a lot of effort to build a resort to scam little old ladies out of their retirement, but that was a different era.

Quick ROI (return on investment) is probably the name of the game now. AND considering the whole Lake Van monster thing....well, you know....

 

[Obliquinaut]

There is a very simple observation that should be pointed out as going along with this: if you don't believe the scientific evidence and arguments out there for the Big Bang or abiogenesis or evolution, etc, that still provides no support (neither evidential or circumstantial) for any alternative presented by religions. And in addition to this, there is a lot of data published in the scientific literature that would need to be explained outside the context of the theories and/or hypotheses they support.

IS THAT A TULLY MONSTER in your avatar? Go Illinois! (They gotta have something going for them these days!)

 

[TBDude65]

IS THAT A TULLY MONSTER in your avatar? Go Illinois! (They gotta have something going for them these days!)

Not a Tully monster. The large animal in the top is an Anomalicarid (one of the first super predators from the Cambrian although at least one species made it to the Devonian) and the smaller animal in the bottom right is Opabinia (it had a trunk-like appendage at the front and a cluster of eyes. It too is one of the weird Camrbian organisms from the Burgess Shale).

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not a Tully monster. The large animal in the top is an Anomalicarid (one of the first super predators from the Cambrian although at least one species made it to the Devonian) and the smaller animal in the bottom right is Opabinia (it had a trunk-like appendage at the front and a cluster of eyes. It too is one of the weird Camrbian organisms from the Burgess Shale).

Thanks! I was probably mostly going by the tail-like thing:

(This is where it becomes clear I only took one Paleo class and that was >30 years ago!)