How would you feel if someone characterized your position as "hatred for God"?
I don't think he hated God. He hated Christians of certain churches he didn't like. I've been accused by people like him of hating God. They don't realize that when they try to push other Christians away from God, they only succeed in removing themselves from Him. Poor fellows.
Stop throwing around the "H" word and give reasons why the papacy IS NOT the Antichrist of Scripture - if you can find any...
Yeah, like that. It's very bad for your soul. Not that there haven't been Catholics that hateful; the Reformation had love of God on all sides, but hatred of men on all sides as well. We could argue that Luther's hatred for Jews made him the AntiChrist, but it would be a foolish and hateful thing, which would damage our walk with God.
Avoid that kind of thing.
The eye could not have developed through slow, successive, slight modifications, and only dishonest, unscrupulous "scientists" point to "evidence" for it, and Christians who support that nonsense should be able to command mountains to be removed to the sea with the amount of faith required to believe such pseudoscience.
Turns out, some phyla still have living members that show the stages of eye evolution. Let's consider mollusks...
Try again?
What you need to learn is the difference between "micro" evolution which happens all the time, and "macro" evolution which is a myth.
Well, let's ask Answers in Genesis, a prominent creationist group:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation
Of course, they say, it's not "real evolution", even though it is exactly what evolution is by definition.
Can you find anything in the fossil record to support your nonsense?
Let's ask a prominent creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig
series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
We never find a half cow/half whale
Dr. Wise goes on...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series.
No one says whales evolved from cows.
Because you seem to know nothing at all about it. Here's your chance. What do you think biological evolution is? Either Darwin's definition or the definition after the rediscovery of genetics will be acceptable. What do you think it is?
You're up.
(declines to answer)
That's the usual response. Not all creationists; some are quite knowledgeable. But most are like you, not knowing anything about it. But we'll look at your diversion, now...
Here's an opportunity to defend unobserved "biological evolution" by explaining this major headache for evolution:
Sounds scary....
The atheistic scientific community knows oxygen would have immediately oxidized and destroyed the molecules for life as soon as they burst forth into existence by whatever magical means evolutionists speculate, leaving no opportunity for them to hang around for millions of years before they came together to form the first cell...so to mitigate this problem, they claim the primitive atmosphere was not OXIDIZING, but REDUCING, meaning "no oxygen." Cool story, bro.
Yeah, the geologists had this figured out long before anyone considered the implications for life. The banded iron formations show exactly what you're talking about. The rocks found from the early Earth are reduced, not oxidized. But what's interesting is that we see where anaerobic bacterial would grow, they produced mats of cells, which gave off oxygen, which eventually poisoned them, leading to a break in the formation, which later returned as the oxygen diffused out. We have a layer of oxidized rock followed by a layer of reduced rock, followed by a layer...
But this isn't an issue for evolution. Evolutionary theory observes that life began at some point , and describes how it changes over time. Darwin, in the last sentence of his book, suggested that God just created the first living things. BTW, all the molecules needed for life have now been found to have originated by non-living processes. Would you like to learn about that?
One way or another life began. Your argument assumes that life could not begin. Game, set, and match.
