Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
BlueLioness,
I found the same on this Christian forum, elite evolutionist that dominate threads with Naturalism. Rather than being open minded they have sharpened their debate and bullying skills.
But the forum allows Christians and non-Christians on this specific forum. And God is ever so near.
We one is raised and schooled in evolution and natural sciences they eventually learn the strengths and weaknesses of Naturalism. No?
I do not believe in molecules-to- man.
I do not believe in the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing.
I do not believe in the spontaneous origination of life from non living material.
I do not believe that rare duplication errors can create new information to advance a species.
I don't believe that single celled creatures can give birth to multicelled creatures.
I don't believe that a dinosaur with feathers is any more than a dinosaur with feathers.
I do not believe that the Bible, which had 40 human authors over 1500 years, is a book of mythology.
I do not believe that the Son of God would verify that the Bible is the inspired word of God if it was completely wrong about how the world was created.
I don't believe Jesus would have spoken of the first man and woman if they were not real.
I don't believe Jesus would have mentioned Noah if he was a myth.
I do not believe that the fossil record shows anything evolving into anything else.
I do believe that Jesus would have mentioned if the Fourth Comandment, which was carved into a stone tablet by God, contained and untrue statement.
I do believe that God is the creator of the universe; and of all things seen and unseen.
I do believe that God created the world in six days; that on the sixth day He created man; and that on the seventh day He rested.
I do believe that evolution is completely false and based on bad science; that it only enjoys the support of the scientific community simply by nature of the fact that there is no alternative.
Really? I'd argue that you do - the Genesis creation story is exactly that.I do not believe in molecules-to- man.
Can you define nothing? I suspect nobody here (except AV?) believes in creation (spontaneous or otherwise) from nothing.I do not believe in the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing.
Perhaps you misunderstand the word "spontaneous"?I do not believe in the spontaneous origination of life from non living material.
What would an advance be? Bacteria gaining the ability to digest nylon is not an advance?I do not believe that rare duplication errors can create new information to advance a species.
I don't think anyone will argue with you there.I don't believe that single celled creatures can give birth to multicelled creatures.
Again, we are in agreement.I don't believe that a dinosaur with feathers is any more than a dinosaur with feathers.
Good for you, and nobody is asking you to believe otherwise. But this is all irrelevant to the belief claims you made above about evolution and origins.I do not believe that the Bible, which had 40 human authors over 1500 years, is a book of mythology.
I do not believe that the Son of God would verify that the Bible is the inspired word of God if it was completely wrong about how the world was created.
I don't believe Jesus would have spoken of the first man and woman if they were not real.
I don't believe Jesus would have mentioned Noah if he was a myth.
What would such a fossil look like? I suspect you are choosing to ignore the evidence rather than refuting it.I do not believe that the fossil record shows anything evolving into anything else.
What has the sabbath day got to do with anything in this thread? Or are you just getting this off your chest?I do believe that Jesus would have mentioned if the Fourth Comandment, which was carved into a stone tablet by God, contained and untrue statement.
Again, good for you. And again that's irrelevant to the belief claims you made above about evolution and origins.I do believe that God is the creator of the universe; and of all things seen and unseen.
I do believe that God created the world in six days; that on the sixth day He created man; and that on the seventh day He rested.
But I'm guessing you cannot demonstrate this "bad science"?I do believe that evolution is completely false and based on bad science; that it only enjoys the support of the scientific community simply by nature of the fact that there is no alternative.
Simply repeating "la la la I'm not listening and everything you say is false" does not constitute arguing. Addressing the evidence presented by evolution proponents would be considered arguing.I no longer believe that it is productive to argue with evolution proponents.
No, in Genesis God created man from the dust of the earth and did so withing the time span of one day. Man did not evolve from molecules.Really? I'd argue that you do - the Genesis creation story is exactly that.
Actually, the creation of the universe can be described as a conversion of God's energy into matter. Natrualists do not believe in God, therefore for them the universe has no possible oprigination.Can you define nothing? I suspect nobody here (except AV?) believes in creation (spontaneous or otherwise) from nothing.
"Coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause. "Perhaps you misunderstand the word "spontaneous"?
How about fish gaining legs? A change of diet isn't exactly a world changing reformation.What would an advance be? Bacteria gaining the ability to digest nylon is not an advance?
The fact is that every fossil we find is a distinct animal that lived and died. None of them show any transition to anything else. The oldest fossil ever found had complex DNA, which indicates design.What would such a fossil look like? I suspect you are choosing to ignore the evidence rather than refuting it.
Exodus 10:11What has the sabbath day got to do with anything in this thread? Or are you just getting this off your chest?
I have many times. Someone else can do it now; not that anyone will pay attention or open their minds to the truth and the limitations of science. There is no proven identifiable mechanism for evolution. Coppy errors do not re-write information any more than my printer can mess up a report and print an original novel.But I'm guessing you cannot demonstrate this "bad science"?
I have many times.
Trying to move the goalposts - what a surprise. But ignoring the element of time, where did the dust come from? You'll find that dust is made from molecules which (you believe) were then made into man. Ergo you believe in molecules-to-man.No, in Genesis God created man from the dust of the earth and did so withing the time span of one day. Man did not evolve from molecules.
Uh-huh. So that's your definition of nothing, is it?Actually, the creation of the universe can be described as a conversion of God's energy into matter. Natrualists do not believe in God, therefore for them the universe has no possible oprigination.
Again, moving the goalposts. You haven't shown how it is not an advance, you've redefined your belief.How about fish gaining legs? A change of diet isn't exactly a world changing reformation.
You avoid the question again and throw in a couple of new, bold and unsupported assertions.The fact is that every fossil we find is a distinct animal that lived and died. None of them show any transition to anything else. The oldest fossil ever found had complex DNA, which indicates design.
Great illustration of your complete lack of understanding of ToE. For your analogy to be correct man (for example) would have "evolved" directly from bacteria in one generation. Is that your demonstration of bad science?Coppy errors do not re-write information any more than my printer can mess up a report and print an original novel.
Yup.
Just ignore all the missing links in between, add time as necessary, and you can have any habitable planet biodistributed & biodiverse in no tim... er ... in time.
It's easy to believe in evolution:
1. Start with a habitable planet -- nevermind how it got here.
2. Start with life already in progress -- nevermind how it started.
3. Skip all missing links between nodes -- assume they were there at one time.
4. Add time as necessary -- never assume there wasn't enough.
5. Assume the environment was conducive to growth.
And voila! evolution on paper!
I do not believe in the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing.
I do believe that God is the creator of the universe; and of all things seen and unseen.
If the universe was created by magic, then it already existed, since with magic, it already exists, but is hidden from view with smoke and mirrors.It's easy to believe in Creationism... everything happens by magic,
you don't need to explain a thing.
If the universe was created by magic, then it already existed, since with magic, it already exists, but is hidden from view with smoke and mirrors.
... Now they tell me!
Only because you think it's magic, instead of miracles.Smoke and mirrors... yeah, that's Creationism in a nut shell.
Only because you think it's magic, instead of miracles.
You may not see a difference between the two, but it's enough to keep you from appreciating Creationism.
Only because you think it's magic, instead of miracles.
You may not see a difference between the two,
but it's enough to keep you from appreciating Creationism.
No; not at all.I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.
So I'm feeling at odds.
I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?
If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?
If a change of diet is the only proof you have of evolution, then you should just admit there is no proof.Again, moving the goalposts. You haven't shown how it is not an advance, you've redefined your belief.
For evolution to be correct, bacteria would have to containe the genetic information to become man. You'd also have to overcome that nasty sterility that happens whenever there is excessive change in a species.Great illustration of your complete lack of understanding of ToE. For your analogy to be correct man (for example) would have "evolved" directly from bacteria in one generation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?