Why Evolution is True (3)

[Mr Strawberry]

So you think it is obvious you are truly related to this fella. OK.

Creationists often seem to struggle with the obvious.

 

[morse86]

Who saved Jesus?


Yes I do. And if the translators of the bible were accurate, Yehoshua would not be Jesus, it would be Joshua. Which still retains a traceable meaning "Jah" (YHVH God the Father), shua (saves). "Jesus" retains none of this meaning which He Himself said was oh so important.

The mythos wrapped around the name Jesus is that he is the savior. The rest of the bible and His real Name states that YHVH, God the Father is the savior.


That is why I take issue with the name "Jesus". Because it is not the name the man in question was called by, and have none of the original meaning left. It is used as a cover to skew proper worship from The God whom no image can be made, who is worshipped in Spirit, to a cult of personality and torturous death of humanity. What was the path to eternal life has been made into a death cult....again.

The Catholic mass is a funeral for Jesus celebrating his death. Over and over and over. The entire story has been turned upside down from entering eternal life by living "Jesus's" teaching to celebrating his murder and excusing ourselves from our sins.

"Jesus" has been thoroughly hijacked over time and the key to doing that was hiding the real meaning of His real name. Then all lies and false dogma can be wrapped around the new name.


I do this out of my love for God, as an advocate for the Son of God against those who use his name for vane glory and enslaving of the human soul in the house of Mother Circe.

I am as Elijah against the priests of Baal.

God has several names. The name of Jesus wasn't even revealed in the old testament. Genesis said people begin calling upon the name of the Lord.

Job talked about his redeemer...he was talking about Jesus...but the name of Jesus was not yet revealed until the new testament.

Job 19:25: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

So how were all of the people like Job, David, Samson, Abraham saved in the old testament? We know they were saved by Faith. It's because they all had faith in the "redeemer" that was to come.

Jesus did not need a saviour...he was God in the flesh. He was blameless and he took upon himself our sins and paid the price for us.....the saints are justified through him...he is the redeemer.


Hebrews 1:8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

1 John 2:23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 5:12: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

God has several names. The name of Jesus wasn't even revealed in the old testament. Genesis said people begin calling upon the name of the Lord.

Job talked about his redeemer...he was talking about Jesus...but the name of Jesus was not yet revealed until the old testament.

Job 19:25: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

So how were all of the people like Job, David, Samson, Abraham saved in the old testament? We know they were saved by Faith. It's because they all had faith in the "redeemer" that was to come.

Jesus did not need a saviour...he was God in the flesh. He was blameless and he took upon himself our sins and paid the price.


Hebrews 1:8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

The name of "Jesus" wasn't revealed to the world until 500 years ago with the invention of the letter "J"

Who was it that Jesus could do nothing of his own will without?

Who was it that Jesus got down on his hands and knees to pray to, asking that all Man be one wit the Father as he had become?

Who was it that Christed Jesus at the Jordan river?

Who was it that raised Jesus from the dead?




Was he lying when he said "I can do nothing apart from the will of my Father"?

Was he praying to himself in the garden of Gethsemane?

Did he baptize and Christen himself at the river Jordan?

Did he raise himself from the dead?



YHVH, God the Father empowered, received the prayers of, baptized and raised up (saved) Jesus.

 

[morse86]

What part of Jesus did the work for us did you not understand? The first time Jesus came, he came as a regular man..he came not to condemn the world but to save it.

When he comes the second time, let's just say it is going to be very unpleasant for the nonbelievers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of Jesus did the work for us did you not understand? The first time Jesus came, he came as a regular man..he came not to condemn the world but to save it.

When he comes the second time, let's just say it is going to be very unpleasant for the nonbelievers.

morse, try to think logically for once. Do you feel threatened when Muslims tell you that you are going to go to their form of hell? Do you feel threatened when Hindus do (actually I have no idea whether Hindus have a hell or not). How about when followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster tell you that you will never partake of the beer volcanoes?

I assume that you are not too worried about any of those threats, though not for logical reasons. Then you should realize that people who do not react out of fear cannot be threatened by your Jesus.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

When he comes the second time, let's just say it is going to be very unpleasant for the nonbelievers.

Yeah, because obviously a supernatural entity that created the whole universe is really going to care whether you believe he exists or not. It's obviously going to be his number one priority and ALL he's been worrying about since deciding to create the universe in the first place. "Oh, the worry. Will they believe I exist or won't they? Well they'd better, because if they don't I shall condemn them to an eternity of unimaginable agony. Yeah, that's what I'll do"

All sounds rather ridiculous doesn't it? Perhaps it's a made up story. What are the chances of that do you think?

 

[dad]

Creationists often seem to struggle with the obvious.

To be clear, you are stating that it is obvious that you are related to the beast. Correct? Is it also obvious when you look at a potato??

 

[dad]

morse, try to think logically for once. Do you feel threatened when Muslims tell you ....

Curiously, an evil spirit named 'Gabriel' appeared to Mohamed. This was not the angel Gabriel of Scripture.

So whatever it said, I sure would not be worried, or believe it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

To be clear, you are stating that it is obvious that you are related to the beast. Correct?

Oh yes.

Is it also obvious when you look at a potato??

Lol, well, no the resemblance is less obvious until one becomes more familiar with creationists.

 

[morse86]

Wolfs and Dogs are the same "kind" of animal. You might get a big dog or a small dog but it's still a dog. It will not turn into an bird or a hippopotamus like evolutionists believe.

Evolutonists say humans got more chromosomes as they evolved. Guess what? A chicken has more chromosomes.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Wolfs and Dogs are the same "kind" of animal. You might get a big dog or a small dog but it's still a dog. It will not turn into an bird or a hippopotamus like evolutionists believe.

Evolutonists say humans got more chromosomes as they evolved. Guess what? A chicken has more chromosomes.

Has it ever occurred to you to find out what you are arguing against before showing off your how muddled you are?

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady, you have been called out countless times and people have shown you why.

Now, I am not surprised you pretend none of this has ever happened, as that is just a defense mechanism you need to engage that has become automatic for you.

evidence is evidence, it's just that you have none. To speak of, and this is why there are such shallow posts comming from your side of the camp.

 

[createdtoworship]

No...it doesn't.

well we share 90% homologous genes with cats.

and it's very hard to find a chart of the percentage of homologous genes shared between chimps and humans.

I have spent a half hour looking.

what they tend to do is pick and choose certain genes that are similiar and then give a percentage of 96-98% similarity. But I did find one study

shows only 60-70% similarity,
https://answersingenesis.org/answer...analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

shows 60-70% similiarity:

ProgettoCosmo - An automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes

again is this is wrong, please show a chart of percentage of similiar homologous genes between humans and chimps.

other figures here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html

 

[Astrophile]

But you are saying that men and whales both came from rocks....

I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that human beings (Late Pliocene and Pleistocene) came from immediate (Miocene) ancestors that were primates but were not human, and that Eocene whales came from Paleocene and Mesozoic ancestors that were mammals (probably artiodactyls) but were not whales.

rain fell on the earth rock and spontaneous generation happened. And if you keep following that logic, you have to eventually say life came from nothing smaller than a dot (spontaneous generation).

Although this is oversimplifying a complex subject, I accept that at some time during the Early Archaean or Hadean eras (between 3.5 and 4.2 billion years ago) life originated in some unknown way from non-living matter, but that is not the point. We don't have to know how life originated more than 3.5 billion years ago to be able to understand the evolution of humans from non-human primates in the last 5-10 million years or of whales from non-cetacean mammals in the last 50-60 million years. You are saying, in effect, that we can't say anything about the life of a man or woman if we don't know the names of their parents and exactly when and where they were born.

Most of the fossil records have been fabricated...they have to otherwise they lose $$$ funding.

This is utter nonsense. Greek philosophers described fossils before the time of Jesus. Mediaeval Christian philosophers in Europe discussed fossils before the time of Christopher Columbus and George Washington, and a fortiori before the Americans adopted the dollar as their currency. Anyway, I have found fossils myself on the Dorset coast, and bought a fossil ammonite as a present for my mother. Do you think these were fabricated, or that I am lying?

They use the fossil to date the layer and the layer to date the fossil.

Again, nonsense. William Smith observed, before Charles Darwin was born, that the individual rock strata were associated with their characteristic fossils, and that these fossils appeared in the same order. The relative ages of the geological systems and their fossils (Devonian below Carboniferous and therefore older) were established before Darwin published anything on evolution. The absolute ages of the rocks were determined from radiometric dating from about 1910 onwards, but all geologists knew before the discovery of radioactivity that a Cretaceous Iguanodon was younger than a Jurassic Apatosaurus, and that a Miocene Dryopithecus was older than a Pleistocene Homo neanderthalis. Any book on geology or palaeontology will explain the realities of dating rocks and fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

evidence is evidence, it's just that you have none. To speak of, and this is why there are such shallow posts comming from your side of the camp.

No, gradyll. You have it one hundred percent backwards. The theory of evolution is the side with all of the scientific evidence. Do you even understand why all of the fossil evidence supports evolution and only evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Curiously, an evil spirit named 'Gabriel' appeared to Mohamed. This was not the angel Gabriel of Scripture.

So whatever it said, I sure would not be worried, or believe it.

Wrong. Mo believed that he was visited by the angel Gabriel.

If anything Mo was delusional. Or perhaps making it up as he went along. He would not be the first religious leader that did that and certainly not the last. The one thing that he was not visited by was a demon.

And that was not the point anyway. Do you feel threatened by other religions when they tell you that you are going to hell?

Why do people on your side constantly make that mistake? Your threats are not scary to someone that does not share your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wolfs and Dogs are the same "kind" of animal. You might get a big dog or a small dog but it's still a dog. It will not turn into an bird or a hippopotamus like evolutionists believe.

Evolutionists do not make that claim either. Evolutionists believe that kind produces kind. Of course your problem is that you cannot make a working definition of kind.

Evolutonists say humans got more chromosomes as they evolved. Guess what? A chicken has more chromosomes.

No, they don't believe that. Who told you that? The number of our chromosomes can go up or down and has very little to do with "how evolved" an animal is. In fact we have one less pair of chromosomes than the other great apes do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well we share 90% homologous genes with cats.

and it's very hard to find a chart of the percentage of homologous genes shared between chimps and humans.

I have spent a half hour looking.

what they tend to do is pick and choose certain genes that are similiar and then give a percentage of 96-98% similarity. But I did find one study

shows only 60-70% similarity,
https://answersingenesis.org/answer...analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

shows 60-70% similiarity:

ProgettoCosmo - An automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes

again is this is wrong, please show a chart of percentage of similiar homologous genes between humans and chimps.

other figures here:

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

And you still can't find legitimate sources. If you want clarification on homologous genes you should be talking to sfs.

I know that he would be able to explain the concept to you.

 

[dad]

No, gradyll. You have it one hundred percent backwards. The theory of evolution is the side with all of the scientific evidence. Do you even understand why all of the fossil evidence supports evolution and only evolution?

Only when you terminally saturate evidence with your dark beliefs ritualistically. No one is bound to accept tainted and poisoned evidence as 'evidence'!

 

[dad]

Wrong. Mo believed that he was visited by the angel Gabriel.

I don't care if he believed he was visited by Santa Clause. The fact is that we know what Gabriel said when here other times, and it was always pointing to Christ. No one with another message is from God. Guess what that leaves?

If anything Mo was delusional. Or perhaps making it up as he went along.

We don't know that. He may have been and likely was visited by a spirit.

The one thing that he was not visited by was a demon.

Talk about what you know. I might agree in that it could have been Satan, so technically not a demon, but we don't know. We do know it was NOT Gabriel.

And that was not the point anyway. Do you feel threatened by other religions when they tell you that you are going to hell?

Never had any do that. They might get a dose of their own medicine if they try.

Why do people on your side constantly make that mistake? Your threats are not scary to someone that does not share your beliefs.

Threats?? Get a grip man.