Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[RickG]

Yup, and it has been declared that animals descended from plants via jellyfish. Nothing online to that effect now, which means what? They goofed! Now how much of what is currently in textbooks is fact, vs speculation? Talk to a good scientist and they'll tell you, the teaching of Ev sux

I don't know of any science that says anything about animals descending from plants via jellyfish. That's not only not true it's ridiculous.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was 29 months ago. AV, you still saying that?

Yes.

In my opinion, macroevolution is a tool of the devil.

As such, the Antichrist will demonstrate abiogenesis with ease during the Tribulation period.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[Nostromo]

In my opinion

Noted, thanks for sharing.

 

[Nostromo]

2) I know a *good bit* about Ev theory, and had tested in the top 1% of the Nation on every aptitude test designed by the mid 90's - since you make an issue out of it.

They do say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You know people are grasping at straws when they claim to be 99th percentile for any given standardized test. It's like an appeal to authority to yourself.

 

[Phred]

No it doesn't

Yes, it does.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV)

Circumference to the diameter. 30/10 or exactly 3. God could have given us numbers that when divided gave us accurate figures. But in his infinite wisdom he chose to give us 30 and 10.

You're going to impose English, with today's understanding, upon Hebrew oral traditions, and then expect me to think you're smart? (Besides rabbits DO do something similar; you probably don't even know what that is, nor have you considered how this might affect the wisdom of including them in your diet, which is the point of the text, not the biological specific you're harping on)

I've been told by people in this very forum that the King James version is the most accurate Bible ever printed. And from this version I give you:

Leviticus 11:6 (King James Version)

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Again, God, in his infinite wisdom must have known it wasn't cud but since it looked like cud he just let that go, right? So either God didn't write it or didn't know???

Look genius, the word for bird (fowl in the KJV) also means "winged insect."

Bats are mammals. Not birds. Yet they are listed with all the other birds. Because they fly.

Leviticus 11

13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Ya got nuttin'.

I got an apologist who doesn't know when he's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Circumference to the diameter. 30/10 or exactly 3. God could have given us numbers that when divided gave us accurate figures. But in his infinite wisdom he chose to give us 30 and 10.

Either that, or the object in question was slightly oval in shape.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

...

Bats are mammals. Not birds. Yet they are listed with all the other birds.

This is what prompted me to make this thread:

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

 

[variant]

Yes.

In my opinion, macroevolution is a tool of the devil.

As such, the Antichrist will demonstrate abiogenesis with ease during the Tribulation period.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

So, evidence you are wrong will actually be evidence you are correct!

I am going to reiterate my previous point that you make terrible arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am going to reiterate my previous point that you make terrible arguments.

I'll say this -- as long as you have a question mark for a faith icon, I don't really care either.

You guys say the same thing about the Bible, so I'll take what you say as a compliment before I take it as an insult.

 

[variant]

I'll say this -- as long as you have a question mark for a faith icon, I don't really care either.

You guys say the same thing about the Bible, so I'll take what you say as a compliment before I take it as an insult.

It's OK AV, I am just pointing out that you continually prove everything I say about you is correct.

Disregarding what other people say merely because of their faith icon is just another example of your poor grasp of things.

Why are all these other nice people trying to reason with you when you dismiss them before the first word?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are all these other nice people trying to reason with you when you dismiss them before the first word?

Other than I don't know what you're talking about, the answer is in your question.

 

[variant]

Other than I don't know what you're talking about, the answer is in your question.

Sure they don't. What should be obvious to everyone here is how seriously you take opposing arguments.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes.
As such, the Antichrist will demonstrate abiogenesis with ease during the Tribulation period.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Note which things this "beast" can not do ... (Rev 9:20)

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, it does.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape

Oy vey AV already drug us through all that, and no less than 3 perfectly good explanations came out of it. Anybody wanna dig up that thread? (Where's LLoJ when you need him?)

I've been told by people in this very forum that the King James version is the most accurate Bible ever printed. And from this version I give you

You don't even know how to lift a finger to try to figure out what it's saying; much less have you done so. Ya got nuttin,' and you refuse to listen.

 

[razeontherock]

Either that, or the object in question was slightly oval in shape.

Or a couple other perfectly good explanations One of which worked out to = pi

 

[AV1611VET]

Or a couple other perfectly good explanations One of which worked out to = pi

I've noticed over the years that people will ask a question, get an answer, ridicule the answer, then later, you'll either find them or someone else asking the same question in another thread.

A good example is the events on Resurrection day and who went to the tomb.

Internet scientists here will claim these events are full of contradictions; and when you reply with Scofield's explanation, which reconciles all the appearances into one coherent story, they will unjustly ridicule it, then later, you'll see them still wanting an explanation for these seeming contradictions.

 

[No Time]

I've been told by people in this very forum that the King James version is the most accurate Bible ever printed. And from this version I give you:

I got an apologist who doesn't know when he's wrong.

You don't even know how to lift a finger to try to figure out what it's saying; much less have you done so. Ya got nuttin,' and you refuse to listen.

That's the terrible thing he has figured it out but you don't like what he's figured out, the people who wrote the Bible obviously got it wrong, they believed what they saw and more often than not they saw things wrong.

And there's the rub, he really doesn't need to lift anything because all he's doing is talking about your myth not his,
but I guess it's not your fault you have nothing to work with it must be hard trying to inject logic where none exists,
mythologies have always been hard to understand so how hard it must be to try and believe one I don't know?
very hard I would think.

Why do you all think that a bad argument is better than no argument at all? sometimes it's better to just back away,
thinking about it that's not a good idea either because without bad arguments you would spend all of your time just backing away.

 

[driewerf]

Not exactly and you know it. Creationism is the literal belief that the Bible is correct in its form. God, 6 days and so on. Adam and Eve. Muslims are not creationists. Jews are not creationists. Belief that the universe was created does not make one a "stick your head in the sand" creationist.

No more than you are an atheist because you don't believe in all the gods but one.

I disagree.
Creationism is the belief that the world and the Universe were created by some deity. Although on this forum christian creationism is assumed when people write creationism, it isn't.

Many muslims are creationist (Ahrun Yahyah!). Keep in mind that muslims consider the quran as directly dictated by allah to Muhammad.

Creationist Stupidity IV Islamic creationism special - YouTube


Therefore I often prefer the words "biblical literlists". This avoids two problems: first it refers clearly to christianity. Second, when it takes the Flood story and other things two, and avoids complaints from the biblical literlist that "The Flood is'nt part of the creation week". (AV1611VET even wanted somewhere to limit the discussion to Genesis 1, when Genesis 2 was mentioned, the discussion was over for him.)

 

[driewerf]

There are only two alternatives: creationism and atheism -- period.

It's official; the pope is an atheist!

POPE JOHN PAUL II EMBRACES EVOLUTION!! - Christian Updates - New World Order. .
The Vatican's View of Evolution: Pope Paul II and Pope Pius

 

[Delphiki]

It's official; the pope is an atheist!

Well, many Catholics are.