Evolution?

[ChrisJ83]

Those still thinking about evolution need to update themselves on science because evolution is now (officially/scientifically) dead. Look up Stephen Meyer and his research on code containing blueprints in our DNA. With recent discoveries of code containing blueprints in our DNA, we now know that evolution is/was impossible. Code can mutate or degenerate, but it cannot spontaneously create, upgrade, and/or insert itself. A growing number of top former evolutionists are now saying aliens did it, which, as we Christians know, is a half truth.

But no one should have ever bought into evolution anyway...in over a century and a half, zero evidence has been found. Every original text book 'proof' has been thrown out and disproven. None have withstood the test of time. A fly mutating is not evidence for upwards evolution. A bone of an extinct creature is not evidence of upwards evolution because you cant prove that creature had kids, that it wasn't just a rare mutation...and why would you think animals back then could do something we haven't observed throughout 6000 years of recorded history...give birth to anything other than its own kind. Even evolutionists admitted that the fossil record showed a sudden explosion of life.

If you're waiting on the atheist hijacked mainstream educational or scientific communities to talk about this evolution destroying evidence, don't hold your breath. The fact that they've been firing and blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them should tell you they don't care about the truth...

 

[Chinchilla]

Those still thinking about evolution need to update themselves on science because evolution is now dead. Look up Stephen Meyer and his research on code containing blueprints in our DNA. With recent discoveries of code containing blueprints in our DNA, we now know that evolution is/was impossible. Code can mutate or degenerate, but it cannot spontaneously create, upgrade, and/or insert itself. A growing number of top former evolutionists are now saying aliens did it, which, as we Christians know, is a half truth.

But no one should have ever bought into evolution anyway...in over a century and a half, zero evidence has been found. Every original text book 'proof' has been thrown out and disproven. None have withstood the test of time. A fly mutating is not evidence for upwards evolution. A bone of an extinct creature is not evidence of upwards evolution because you cant prove that creature had kids, that it wasn't just a rare mutation...and why would you think animals back then could do something we haven't observed throughout 6000 years of recorded history...give birth to anything other than its own kind. Even evolutionists admitted that the fossil record showed a sudden explosion of life.

If you're waiting on top atheist hijacked mainstream educational or scientific communities to talk about this evolution destroying evidence, don't hold your breath. The fact that they've been firing and blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them should tell you they don't care about the truth...

It was never alive to begin with

 

[JackRT]

Those still thinking about evolution need to update themselves on science because evolution is now (officially/scientifically) dead. Look up Stephen Meyer and his research on code containing blueprints in our DNA. With recent discoveries of code containing blueprints in our DNA, we now know that evolution is/was impossible. Code can mutate or degenerate, but it cannot spontaneously create, upgrade, and/or insert itself. A growing number of top former evolutionists are now saying aliens did it, which, as we Christians know, is a half truth.

But no one should have ever bought into evolution anyway...in over a century and a half, zero evidence has been found. Every original text book 'proof' has been thrown out and disproven. None have withstood the test of time. A fly mutating is not evidence for upwards evolution. A bone of an extinct creature is not evidence of upwards evolution because you cant prove that creature had kids, that it wasn't just a rare mutation...and why would you think animals back then could do something we haven't observed throughout 6000 years of recorded history...give birth to anything other than its own kind. Even evolutionists admitted that the fossil record showed a sudden explosion of life.

If you're waiting on top atheist hijacked mainstream educational or scientific communities to talk about this evolution destroying evidence, don't hold your breath. The fact that they've been firing and blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them should tell you they don't care about the truth...

Move on folks, just more fake news here.

 

[NBB]

Evolution thr theory that says that an amoeba converted into a fly, a cockroach, a banana, and a human. With nothing doing it, just because YES.

 

[Basil the Great]

Evolution, right or wrong, has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of God's existence.

 

[NBB]

Evolution, right or wrong, has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of God's existence.

But they preach nothing created every life form, without the need of God...

 

[JackRT]

Evolution thr theory that says that an amoeba converted into a fly, a cockroach, a banana, and a human. With nothing doing it, just because YES.

Evolution says no such thing at all. Quit making things up.

 

[majj27]

Evolution thr theory that says that an amoeba converted into a fly, a cockroach, a banana, and a human. With nothing doing it, just because YES.

Not. Even. Remotely. Close.

That's like saying that Christianity is the idea that if you nail a random jewish person to a giant plus sign, it will grant you immortality and your head will catch fire.

 

[majj27]

But they preach nothing created every life form, without the need of God...

No, they don't. And it's untruthful to say so.

 

[NBB]

Definetely evolution says there is no need for God, and have you seen their tree of life all life forms came from the same one they say.

Edit: look for pìctures of the tree of life. This is supposed 'science'

 

[NBB]

They think because for example humans and bananas have dna in common then they are related? or i'm really wrong here.

 

[NBB]

No, they don't. And it's untruthful to say so.

Have you heard a leading evolutionists, saying God is needed at all? i don't think so. They say the opposite, look at Richard Dawkins for example with his books an all. And was nothing that converts animals into others, animals started converting into others with no one intervining. Just because they started doing 'activities' that favored one trait being developed. So i'm not that wrong when i say it was nothing doing it.

 

[majj27]

Have you heard a leading evolutionists, saying God is needed at all? i don't think so. They say the opposite, look at Richard Dawkins for example with his books an all. And was nothing that converts animals into others, animals started converting into others with no one intervining. Just because they started doing 'activities' that favored one trait being developed. So i'm not that wrong when i say it was nothing doing it.

2+2=4 doesn't need God in there either, but that doesn't mean 2+2=/=4.

Or even worse, that 2+2+God=4, because that means God=0, and I don't think that's what we should take away from this.

 

[NBB]

2+2=4 doesn't need God in there either, but that doesn't mean 2+2=/=4.

Or even worse, that 2+2+God=4, because that means God=0, and I don't think that's what we should take away from this.

Evolution is not like 2 + 2 science -.-
Evolution says there is not a need for God, and i know him. Look at that. Someone needs to be wrong. Unless you believe God created life trough evolution but that is not evolution that is design.

You believe God did not intervene in the creation of man?

 

[majj27]

Evolution is not like 2 + 2 science -.-
Evolution says there is not a need for God, and i know him. Look at that. Someone needs to be wrong. Unless you believe God created life trough evolution but that is not evolution that is design.

You're missing the point. Evolution basically says that animal populations change over time. That's it. Period. It doesn't need to invoke God in order to state that any more than you need to invoke God as part of a geometric proof or why the sky is blue.

 

[NBB]

You're missing the point. Evolution basically says that animal populations change over time. That's it. Period. It doesn't need to invoke God in order to state that any more than you need to invoke God as part of a geometric proof or why the sky is blue.

Ok. But wait, evolution says there is no need for God to convert one animal to another! no designer for life. Humans are not the product of God, but are the product of billions of years of a process. And we have no soul and spirit too! we are a brain! not that things change overtime only. That part is accepted by everyone.

 

[NBB]

You're missing the point. Evolution basically says that animal populations change over time. That's it. Period. It doesn't need to invoke God in order to state that any more than you need to invoke God as part of a geometric proof or why the sky is blue.

I don't know why we are disagreeing every scientist evolutionist ever said there is no need for God with evolution... unless you believe God did it through evolution but that means God did it somehow, not like evolutionists say anyway.

 

[JackRT]

Definetely evolution says there is no need for God, and have you seen their tree of life all life forms came from the same one they say.

Edit: look for pìctures of the tree of life. This is supposed 'science'

The tree of life says nothing whatsoever about God. Your post does say a little about your particular interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Sanoy]

When Darwinism failed it gave rise to neo darwinism, when neo darwinism fails, which from all appearances it is, it will just be replaced with neo-neo- darwinism. Here's the part I'm worried about. Neo-darwinism pretty much exhausted the pool of randomness so to recover a natural theory it will have to include a high degree of teleological forces. While that may seem like a good position for the Theist to be in, it's not. It will still be a No-Yahweh theory, but instead of there being no guidence it will now be open to any vague notions of a guiding mind. Of all the things we experience neo-darwinism explains a tiny portiom. What it misses, it claims doesn't exist. It is a theory in crisis just from explanatory scope, but prevails by its ostensible salvation from God. That motivating enthusiasm will simply carry over into the next revision. What comes next is a quasi naturalistic theory that hits the entire mark of human experience, color, consciousness, feelings, qualia etc. Thats what worries me, because it won't lead to belief in Yahweh, but a life force which man will either turn into a god, or from which a so called god can take his throne.

 

[majj27]

Ok. But wait, evolution says there is no need for God to convert one animal to another! no designer for life. Humans are not the product of God, but are the product of billions of years of a process. And we have no soul and spirit too! we are a brain! not that things change overtime only. That part is accepted by everyone.

Modern evolutionary theory has no information on souls and spirits, because such things are not quantifiable by modern science. We can't weigh a soul or measure a spirit. There is no picture of a soul. We can't define what spirit's temperature is. If you had a human being in front of you and I said "point to the soul", where would you point?

If modern science can't measure, locate, identify or define a soul, why would they take it into account in their observations? HOW would they take it into account?