Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Subduction Zone]

Keep talking ... you're digging yourself deeper.

How is my pointing out Hovind's obvious lies digging myself deeper?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You started this at 0:30:01.

What's that picture on the screen at 0:26:40?

He already showed what the professor is telling him.

I will have to repeat that what he did wrong was to say that the singularity was spinning. And when he was talking about the singularity spinning he had a quote that described the formation of a star. That is not the Big Bang, that is not the singularity. He has been corrected many times on this error and he repeats it, that makes it a lie. I could not do an analogy using your Bible without getting dinged for blasphemy here, his lies are that bad.

But thanks for the tip. At 26:53 you can see another lie of his. His etymology of "universe" is completely wrong. I am sure that error has been pointed out to him to.

When you make things up, and then repeat those stories after being corrected you are no longer in error, you are then a liar.

 

[Strathos]

For debate purposes I have decided that kinds are the three domains of life.

Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes? So you're saying that in the beginning, there were only one species of each?

Yes, I could see AV using an argument like that. However, that is how science works. Science evolves and is self-correcting, which is why it works. Conversely, the Bible allegedly contains Truths™ that never change. So while our understanding of reality changes with new information, the Bible will remain largely unchanged. And with each new refinement of knowledge, the Bible is subject to be proven wrong again and again (or proven correct). That's why I made the tongue in cheek remark that eventually the Bible will contain nothing but metaphor.

People have been trying to understand the Bible for thousands of years. It contains wisdom that is not easy to decipher (Jesus said this Himself). We can just interpret it as best as we can, but most people have different interpretations.

 

[stevevw]

NICE! A lifetime of believing something for which is no evidence and that you won't actually get until after you're dead! In fact, there's pretty much no good reason to believe it at all, but please, just take your word and live a happy life believing in one of the 100,000 gods humans created! And by the way, you don't actually deserve it so feel a bit unworthy too. (atheist quiz, Bible contradictions)

Please if Yahweh is real, then why Zeus isn't?

See thats the thing evolutionist/atheists say there is no God and that religion is a myth and the people that believe in these myths are needing some crutch to live. Some say there is something wrong with believers and they need to let go of this and live i the real world.

Well despite all this people have believed from day dot in something beyond themselves whether it be aliens, ghosts, Buddha, the Greek gods or a number of gods and other beliefs.

The bible says this is a built in need we have that is there and we will never get rid of it. No matter how much we try to convince ourselves that we dont need this it will still be there. Of course evolution says there is no spiritual aspect to us and that its all in the head. But the fact remains whether it be millions of years or thousands of years we have always believe in something outside ourselves.

Now God in the bible says that he is the only one and speaks of others gods and idols that people worshiped. It also talks about many false prophets even some claiming to be god. Satan the great deceiver will do anything to cause people from believing that Christ came to save us from sin and make the way for us to come to god. Thats his whole mission as he believes that he is god and that he can do it better. The more people he can deceive and get on his side the more he thinks that he is beating god and showing that he can do it without him.

If you believe the bible and that god created everything and was the one that started all life then it is understandable that along the way other beliefs will come up. Through time alternative beliefs are formed but it is interesting that many have a similar theme to the bible. So maybe they are just their own version of the same thing. It is natural for man to take this and the turn it into his own version but basically it is Satan who wants to cultivate many distraction away from god. I also believe that evolution is one of these. I also thing there is a degree of faith to believe the theory of evolution.

Faith is a personal thing between god and yourself. It is a relationship you have with god through Christ. Christ came to this earth as god incarnate so that we could know of god and his love. The old testament was the preparation for this with the prophesies and the line of jesus from adam to Noah. abraham, issac, jacob, david through to jesus.

The difference between Christianity and other religions is that god says many times i am the way the truth and the light. The 10 commandments state in the first 2 that,

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.

So god is saying he is the only one true god.


This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God" John 17:3


"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5


"'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6

 

[Oncedeceived]

Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes? So you're saying that in the beginning, there were only one species of each?

I saying for debate purposes, the three kinds or domains of life came before the kinds listed in the Creation Narrative. Kinds after its kind.

 

[stevevw]

This is an ID site, a creationist site by another name.

You have been duped and you don't realize it, they are taking you for a mug.

I realize that non believers and evolutionists want backup from sites that have no connection to religion. I try as much as i can to get references from science sites. Sometimes like you say it seems scientific but when you dig a little deeper you find that religion is behind it. I have learnt as i have gone along to check and have found many sites that are scientific on the same subject which say the same thing as the religious site. The difference is some religious site may emphasise certain aspects which can take things out of context. But there are religious sites that dont and they use peer reviewed papers and have scientific experts to refer to. Unfortunately because of suspicion and perhaps assumptions from non believers they are thrown out because of what other sites have done. But this is the same for anything. A financial advice company can be tarnished because of the wrong information that individuals had promoted. This is the nature of people not the religion behind it.

Those who believe in evolution can also have a degree of faith to believe their theory. Some who dont understand the theory will beieve because the experts said it is true. But we all know that they can get it wrong as well. Science comes up with predictions and makes theories and then tests that to see if it is correct. They will then adjust it or come up with new hypothesis if they find that the tests didnt show what they thought was the case. But more often than not certain aspects of the theory are believed even when evidence shows at the every least it is in question. So over time evolution itself can become a form of worship.

I dont get duped to easily nowadays as i am older and wiser. I have been through the naivety of youth and belief and i have also been a non believer.
I believe in using my brain and doing the investigation and i enjoy finding out about new things all the time. I believe this is a learning process and people will make mistakes. The problem is that the experts we sometimes rely on will also be wrong. If you consider that much of the information that is out there about evolution is hypothesized on what they see in the fossil record and trying to investigate something that happened thousands or millions of years ago. They were not there and they cant do tests to see if it stands up. Thats why the new area of genetics is so important as this cannot be fudged as it is there in black and white. That is why some of the information that evolutionist went around saying was true and correct and was definitely the case is being proven wrong or at the very least questionable.

At the end of the day my faith isn't based on evidence. If you were able to prove God by evidence then it would not be faith and thats the way God designed it. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we can understand the love and true nature of god. This will give us the insights into seeing that this whole universe and the incredible life and nature around us can only be by God and from God.

 

[biggles53]

Thats why the new area of genetics is so important as this cannot be fudged as it is there in black and white. That is why some of the information that evolutionist went around saying was true and correct and was definitely the case is being proven wrong or at the very least questionable.

Please give an example.....ANY example....

At the end of the day my faith isn't based on evidence. If you were able to prove God by evidence then it would not be faith and thats the way God designed it. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we can understand the love and true nature of god. This will give us the insights into seeing that this whole universe and the incredible life and nature around us can only be by God and from God.

Why did you feel it necessary to lie about your religious beliefs when you first posted, if they are so important to you...?

 

[46AND2]

I did a quick scan of the posts in the threads and I can't find what you are talking about. Would you mind finding it and posting it so I know what you are referring to?

Sorry, been offline for a couple days...I quoted what I was talking about in post 113. You said science is not about knowing or proving anything...which is correct, of course.

Later in the thread, you claimed to know that God exists. When I queried you about how you gained this knowledge, you were very vague, and the few tidbits you did reveal amounted to little more than studying the Bible, and other religions, and praying. Essentially, becoming convinced in much the same manner that a scientist would become convinced about the topic he is studying (apart from the praying, of course). Yet, you claim a definitive knowledge in a way that scientists would shy away from.

I would simply like to know, what makes God THAT tangible to you?

I apologize if you have already answered this, I have not caught up on the thread, yet.

 

[stevevw]

Please give an example.....ANY example....

Ive posted that info 20 times by now, surely you've seen it. But here is a couple of examples.

They said that gorillas were our 2nd closest relative because the anatomy and bones matched as they do with the chimps. They said it was for sure and definite and now genetics have shown they aren't our 2nd closet relative. It is actually the Macuaques which look completely different. This now puts a spanner in their trying to claim connections through the fossils and skeleton matching. If they got this wrong, which is a main connection to us, then how many others have they got wrong.

Genetics has found violations in links that they said were definite lines that showed transitions and how species evolved. So now species are having to be pulled out of the ancestry lines and some that dont seem to match are being put into ancestry lines which are contradicting what evolutionists have said in the past.

Molecular systematics has surmounted the confusion stemming from comparisons of morphologically disparate species to reveal unexpected evolutionary relationships such as the Afrotheria, a clade composed of strikingly different mammals including elephants, aardvarks, manatees, and golden moles. So before genetics they were lumping groups together because of the fossil records and anatomy and building these branches in the tree of life. They were using examples of how the features looked similar so this is proof that they evolved from each other. Now it is throwing up odd matches that dont blend so well and bringing into question the how or if species evolved from each other. Remember they produced books and taught this in schools as fact and made up all sorts of stories about this animal coming from that animal.

Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism or common descent, actually the opposite. Nested hierarchies can be used to argue against macro evolution. If the fish are always fish, then they will never be birds, reptiles, apes, or humans. Indeed, we can see the nested hierarchy more clearly if we disregard evolution. Why? To illustrate, if we invoke Darwinian evolution we would have to say the nesting goes like this:

FISH are the common ancestors of humans, birds, and frogs. Ergo birds nest within fish, and so do humans, and so do frogs. That is what Theobald’s Markov chain would “predict” in terms of nesting. But the actual anatomical/taxonomic nesting tells a different story: fish are fish, humans are not fish, birds are not fish, frogs are not fish. Are you going to believe Theobald’s Markov chains that you are a fish or are you going to believe you’re a human and not a fish?


To try to nest humans with fish because we supposedly descended from them is at variance with the nested hierarchy we would build by simply looking and comparing traits instead of fabricating Darwinian stories.

One can, just by looking at traits, assemble creatures into nice nested hierarchies. They look at first like they descended conceptually from a common ancestor, but the problem is they all look like siblings with no real ancestor. In fact, many times a common ancestor doesn’t seem possible in principle.


For example, what is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates? Err, crash…hard to conceive of even in principle. It’s like looking for a square circle. Those gene sequence worshipers argue the genes show there was a common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates, but they seem to have problem describing anatomically what it would look like. Google “common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates” and try to find even a hypothetical description of what the common ancestor could look like even in principle. Maybe the lack of transitionals suggest there weren’t any.

In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierarchies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism.

Other examples are. This shows why the nesting resists a common ancestor.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson

Or how about the transitionals between unicellular and multicellular. Darwinists once hoped that we could demonstrate the notion of transitionals by finding living transitionals. The absence of living transitionals is also evidence that maybe they never existed, just like functioning 2.3-wheeled cars. It would appear functioning biological systems, like man-made machines, must make leaps per saltum rather than slow gradual steps. Biological systems tend to polarize and group, they don’t seem to like gradual transitions for certain major architectures or body plans. It’s not that the fossils can’t be found, they can’t exist even in principle.

The list is endless of problems of finding transitionals even in principle, the nesting and very distinct gaps in the nesting are evidence against Darwinian evolution and common ancestry.

So, how does a nested hierarchy present evidence for evolution? Well, the short answer is, It Doesn't. A close look at actual genetic evidence shows a substantial amount of data against the idea of nested hierarchies being evidence for evolutionary common descent when you compare protein coding genes and the proteins they produce across mammalian genomes. Why? Because individual organisms which are more closely related by common descent (or 'supposedly' more closely related) should be genetically more similar to each other than they would be to organisms to which they are more distantly related. More closely related means more genetically similar.

This is certainly true in the case that you are more closely related to and therefore more genetically similar to your parents and sibling(s) than you are to a person living on a different continent or of different parental lineages. Say for example if you were an African-American born and raised by your parents who were sharecroppers somewhere in Mississippi. Then one day you wonder about your heritage and go for a DNA test and upon getting the results you found that you were genetically more similar to Caucasians you Might at least Wonder if maybe, just maybe you had been adopted.

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other. By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.

Now, how does this prediction measure up to the genetic data? Well, it doesn't measure up very well at all really. For an example within the primate hierarchy, while the Human TAAR1 gene actually is most similar to that in Chimp BUT it is Less similar to Gorilla than it is in Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset. This is one of many examples that contradicts the hypothesis that Gorillas are our evolutionary 'next of kin' after Chimpanzees.

[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399

[/font]
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
Descriptiontrace amine associated receptor 1 [Source:HGNC Symbol;Acc:17734]LocationChromosome 6: 132,966,123-132,967,142 reverse strand.


[/font]

Top 6 Species from Ortholog list for TAAR1 from Ensembl

​

Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.

​

Evolutionists were going around showing how the Gorilla was our close 2nd of kin. They produced skeletons showing the links and transitions trying to put it in a nice step be step progression. They said this was definite and it was in books and taught at school and now its all wrong. To have the Macaque as our and closet relative now changes the whole anatomy and link and shows how they painted a false picture. If this happens with a main link in the lines of evolution how many more are there with the rest of the tree of life they have invented. As i said genetics is already throwing up many and you cant argue with the genetics.

Other links that also talk about how the genetics are showing the theory of evolution/common ancestor and nested hierarchy is in question.

National academy of science of the United States of America.
Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions

Plos is a biological and science site.
PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

Liberty university.
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson

Had to slip one site with some religious connection. But hey the science sites back them up and they have links to science sites that support what they say.
CEH: Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush

Nature.com one of the best science sites.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

Nature.com
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10885!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/486460a.pdf


With startling candor. Oxford scientists admit gaping hole in Evolutionary theory.
See more at: With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views


I have plenty more if you need them. Also have some on individual animals which are now being reclassified through genetics like the bat, platypus,fish, rhese monkey and whale.

Why did you feel it necessary to lie about your religious beliefs when you first posted, if they are so important to you...?

What are you talking about, I state that i am a christian in my profile. Is this another case of playing the man and not the ball.
Also why is it necessary to call me a liar. I find that since i have been on hear i have noticed that some of the people supporting evolution against creation have called believers all sorts of names. Liars, ignorant, believe in fairy tales, need to have their heads examined and other derogatory names. This is a debate forum not a slanging match. Please refrain from calling me names like that. I give you the courtesy at least do the same. We are only debating and its not the most important thing in the world so it doesn't need to stoop to such a low level of disrespect.

 

[Ginger123]

We are only debating and its not the most important thing in the world.

That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.

 

[Etheri]

That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.

Hahahah well said. I have a more happier and funnier life then my past.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you meaning me as i was the poster or are you meaning Satan who is known as a sheep in wolves clothing.

Hear is a song i wrote about Satan.

The 2nd verse goes

Preacher, deceiver and cool cat, sheep in wolves clothing with a purple hat
dont be fooled by his idol chat because you'll be caught out and you wont come back, you better watch out when he attacks.

I was talking about the OP. Etheri pretended to be a Christian losing faith when in fact, Etheri was an atheist. But Creationists are the ones that lie.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, been offline for a couple days...I quoted what I was talking about in post 113. You said science is not about knowing or proving anything...which is correct, of course.

Later in the thread, you claimed to know that God exists. When I queried you about how you gained this knowledge, you were very vague, and the few tidbits you did reveal amounted to little more than studying the Bible, and other religions, and praying. Essentially, becoming convinced in much the same manner that a scientist would become convinced about the topic he is studying (apart from the praying, of course). Yet, you claim a definitive knowledge in a way that scientists would shy away from.

I would simply like to know, what makes God THAT tangible to you?

I apologize if you have already answered this, I have not caught up on the thread, yet.

I said those things were only part of my journey.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.

IF you were talking about my post to Steve being the reason you said he was lying, you should know I was warning Steve about Etheri lying.

 

[Ginger123]

That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.

IF you were talking about my post to Steve being the reason you said he was lying, you should know I was warning Steve about Etheri lying.

I have never said anyone was lying I make a point of it, they lie through their teeth but I never tell them.

Oncedeceived your beliefs will never let you see anything wrong with them you have been well and truly captured.
Christianity is a bad thing and the sooner it is forgotten [and it will be just not in our life times] the better.

Children today will not fall for the same rubbish their parents fell for because they have so much information and so many ideas at their fingertips, belief in the supernatural will not be maintained because ignorance will not be tolerated in the future, don't get me wrong, there will always be gullible people around who will believe anything but Christianity as it is today will drop sharply away, believing because you are told to believe will stop and laughter will eventually kill it dead..

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have never said anyone was lying I make a point of it, they lie through their teeth but I never tell them.

Oncedeceived your beliefs will never let you see anything wrong with them you have been well and truly captured.
Christianity is a bad thing and the sooner it is forgotten [and it will be just not in our life times] the better.

Children today will not fall for the same rubbish their parents fell for because they have so much information and so many ideas at their fingertips, belief in the supernatural will not be maintained because ignorance will not be tolerated in the future, don't get me wrong, there will always be gullible people around who will believe anything but Christianity as it is today will drop sharply away, believing because you are told to believe will stop and laughter will eventually kill it dead..

Ok. This is the last thing I am going to say on the subject. This type of conversation is not really for this forum and it seems to be a continual trend of late. There is a Christian killed every five minutes in the world today. Christian persecution is alive and well. There will come a time when yes, Christianity will be rare but it is not due to what you think it will be. So, if you want to continue to discuss such things go to the theology forum.

 

[EternalDragon]

That's where you're wrong it is the most important thing in the world, religion affects more people than anything else,
it causes more stress and anxiety than money, if there was less religion there would be more love, religion is divisive.

I agree. There would be much more love of sin and toleration of sin.

If everyone became atheists, do you believe there would be no school shootings, muggings, burglary, bank robberies, fights, etc? Love would conquer all and everyone would come together?

 

[Ginger123]

I agree. There would be much more love of sin and toleration of sin.

Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

When citing statistics please provide yours source.

In a country where the highest percentage of the population is Christian you would expect that those in prison might reflect that. Also, only 2.8% or something like that are homicide criminals.

BOP: Quick Facts

This is again something that doesn't belong in this forum.

 

[EternalDragon]

Is that why so many Christians in the US are in prison? before you deny it check on it.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Depends on what you define as "Christian". If the forum rules say you can't tell someone they are not a Christian then you can't tell someone that they are a Christian or are associated with a different church.

I do not associate myself with any of the above groups in any way and I am a born again Christian.