Win a debate against evolution every time.

[samaus12345]

Google origin of species pdf read it

 

[KhaosTheory]

I'm also studying computer science too. Should I go Google how to clean electronic vacuum tubes as well?

Oh wait, this is the 21st century. We've made quite a few advances since computers first came out.

 

[jilfe]

Here is why science cannot account for the origins of everything, because science is 'after' and the 'result' of SUPERnatural creation.

If God created mechanisms to cause macroevolution to take place, (which has already been proven over and over again to not work),

but if it did work, how does that account for the origins of everything,
when macroevolution takes millions of years to happen,

And God said it was done in 6 days
Now God spelled it out for everyone to see, all creation took place during a six day period.
So if MACROevolution has to take more than six days, that should settle it once and for all.

How could GOD have used MACROevolution when God specifically had it written down that GOD did all creation in six days.???????



.................

 

[Papias]

Jilfe, I see that you have again ignored the questions posed to you in post #259. Should I conclude that you don't have answers to them? I'm especially interested if you'll agree that God did the creating regardless of what method He used.

Also, you wrote:

How could GOD have used MACROevolution when God specifically had it written down that GOD did all creation in six days.???????

have you read Exodus 19:4? It reads:

You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings
​

So, based on that, I ask you,

how could the Jews have walked out of Egypt when God specifically had it written down that GOD flew them out on eagle's wings????????

Some verses might be symbolic, after all.

Papias

 

[KhaosTheory]

I don't understand how anyone can maintain a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible especially since literalists aren't even literal...

What part of "you should literally kill witches and homosexuals and stone your unruly children" do you just not understand? Get crackin'... there's a lot of unruly children out there.

 

[KhaosTheory]

There's really only two positions... Either God is a horrible, evil tyrant, or the Bible contains a good deal of fallible, human interpretations of God's will.

It's not surprising since our modern Bible has been added to, deleted from, modified, and re-translated many times over thousands of years.

A 30 second game of "telephone" can yield some discrepancies... imagine what a few thousands years could do.

 

[Metal Minister]

There's really only two positions... Either God is a horrible, evil tyrant, or the Bible contains a good deal of fallible, human interpretations of God's will.

It's not surprising since our modern Bible has been added to, deleted from, modified, and re-translated many times over thousands of years.

A 30 second game of "telephone" can yield some discrepancies... imagine what a few thousands years could do.

You have no idea the fallacy you just perpetuated. Do you think God has no way of preserving His word? Do you think He would allow for mistakes so that mankind would be thrown into the lake of fire through no fault of their own, but on a false teaching unbeknownst to millions? You have no idea the painstaking measure that have been taken throughout the ages to preserve every word of the bible. Did you not know, that when an original Hebrew version, on a scroll was unearthed, it was almost a perfect copy to what we have today? The only difference was in the type of language we use is different than what they used. Please reconsider your statement, because it seems to me you have no faith that God has any power to preserve His own word.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

Khaos theory

On information

Dr. Werner Gitt - Scientific Materialism Is Falsified - 1/2 - YouTube

Scientific Materialism Is Falsified - Dr. Werner Gitt - 2/2 - YouTube

 

[Papias]

MM wrote:

Please reconsider your statement, because it seems to me you have no faith that God has any power to preserve His own word.

But then MM, which Bible was "preserved"?


Is the 66 book KJV Bible preserved? How could that be if the 73 book Bible is preserved? Or is the NIV preserved? How could that be if the KJV is preserved, and dozens of verses were removed from it to make the NIV? Or is the MSG Bible preserved? How could that be since it has several hundred pages more text, including additional concepts (or if it is, then how could the KJV be preserved)? Or is the Peshitta bible preserved, or the Ethiopian, or Coptic one, all with different whole books? Or what about the epistle of Barnabas – it’s in our oldest Bibles, but not the NLT? Which is preserved? Are the all preserved? If so, then why are they not the same? Does the "preservation" include Martin Luther, who didn’t like the book of James, nor Revelation, and removed them to an appendix? These are only a tiny fraction of the known changes that have given us the many Bibles we have today.

Even the very claim that the Bible is preserved makes no sense unless one first defines what they mean by “Bible” – and in doing so, does that mean that hundreds of millions of our brethren Chrisitans are then heretics?

I, for one, welcome all Christians, regardless of the many different Bibles they may use.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

MM wrote:



But then MM, which Bible was "preserved"?

The original is regarded as canonical, not the translation.

Is the 66 book KJV Bible preserved? How could that be if the 73 book Bible is preserved? Or is the NIV preserved? How could that be if the KJV is preserved, and dozens of verses were removed from it to make the NIV? Or is the MSG Bible preserved? How could that be since it has several hundred pages more text, including additional concepts (or if it is, then how could the KJV be preserved)? Or is the Peshitta bible preserved, or the Ethiopian, or Coptic one, all with different whole books? Or what about the epistle of Barnabas – it’s in our oldest Bibles, but not the NLT? Which is preserved? Are the all preserved? If so, then why are they not the same? Does the "preservation" include Martin Luther, who didn’t like the book of James, nor Revelation, and removed them to an appendix? These are only a tiny fraction of the known changes that have given us the many Bibles we have today.

All that without regard to the integrity of the texts and the criteria for including them in the canon.

Even the very claim that the Bible is preserved makes no sense unless one first defines what they mean by “Bible” – and in doing so, does that mean that hundreds of millions of our brethren Chrisitans are then heretics?

The word you are looking for, or perhaps trying to avoid, is canonical.

I, for one, welcome all Christians, regardless of the many different Bibles they may use.

With regards to being a Christian, you either believe the Gospel or you don't. The many expressions of the faith in the witness of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation are a complete work with no need for expansion or revision. They are the best preserved writings of antiquity and the 66 books of the 'Bible' are sufficient to teach redemptive history and Christian living. The only qualification for being a Christian is to hear the Gospel, believe it and receive the Holy Spirit. The only way you know if this has in fact occurred is for the Holy Spirit to reveal to you on a personal level that you are in Christ.

The problem isn't with the integrity or the criteria of the Scriptures, it's whether or not you believe the message. Someone preoccupied with skepticism toward the Scriptures doesn't have a problem with the Bible the vast majority of the time. They're problem is seldom intellectual, it's almost always a difference of opinion with the fundamental tenants of faith. Especially, the nature and character of God's revelation to us through Christ.

You never seem to have an issue with someone saying something like this:

There's really only two positions... Either God is a horrible, evil tyrant, or the Bible contains a good deal of fallible, human interpretations of God's will.

It's not surprising since our modern Bible has been added to, deleted from, modified, and re-translated many times over thousands of years.

A 30 second game of "telephone" can yield some discrepancies... imagine what a few thousands years could do.

This is not only grossly inaccurate, it's borderline blasphemy. His statement is crystal clear, either the Biblical historical narratives are unreliable as literal history, or God is evil. The biggest issue with this guy is creation, is there something evil about God creating life?

The point is, you never defend the Scriptures against this kind of a flagrant and reckless indictment of the Scriptures. You will, however, read a young earth creationist their pedigree for believe the Genesis account as a literal history.

Seriously?

 

[jilfe]

I didn't ignore your post #259,

I specifically said that the Bible teaches that God did not use Macroevolution, He used Special Creation.

God is trhe originator either way,
However, when you asked if I agree that macroevolutionist christians agree that God did the creation, I agreed, by how I answered it, but now I'm beginning to wonder, if TE, really do believe God is the originator of all.

Because Macroevolution theory can work outside of God intervening, that's what the atheists believe, so for a christian to believe in macroevolution, they are doing exactly what the atheists do, they are putting science before Gods written Word, and conveniently adding God into the theory.

Your not against God I believe you are christians, but you have chosen to believe science over the Divine attributes of God.
If God used MACROevolution, then why is the Bible written with the grneologies back to adam, when it cme to CHRISTS birth.

The extreme point I'm trying to make in this debate is,
What does it matter what the science shows, what if God created mechanisms with the ability to macroevolve, it still does not prove macroevolution is the method God used in creation.

I'll say this again,
what if macroevolution was possible, it STILL CANNOT be proven GOD used that method, for bringing about origination of all things, GOD specifically had it WRITTEN down in LITERAL WORDS, for everyone to read, that GOD did CREATION in 6 literal days, because HE chose that way to bring about the origins of everything.
　
...............

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't ignore your post #259,

I specifically said that the Bible teaches that God did not use Macroevolution, He used Special Creation.

They know that, they just don't like to admit it.

God is trhe originator either way,
However, when you asked if I agree that macroevolutionist christians agree that God did the creation, I agreed, by how I answered it, but now I'm beginning to wonder, if TE, really do believe God is the originator of all.

Certainly not all but you can say the same thing about creationists. All you have to do to be a religious Christian is look in a mirror and say 'Hi, I'm a religious Christian'. In order to be a Christian you need a miracle, literally, the same miracle the created all life on earth in 6 days and raised Christ from the dead.

What they believe is a mystery, to me at any rate. They seem far more interested in talking about what they don't believe about the Bible.

Because Macroevolution theory can work outside of God intervening, that's what the atheists believe, so for a christian to believe in macroevolution, they are doing exactly what the atheists do, they are putting science before Gods written Word, and conveniently adding God into the theory.

You cannot differ to time what does not have the means. They never answer, or even address the single most important question for natural selection, how did the favorable trait get there in the first place. Random mutations are the worst possible explanations but most of the people you debate on here either don't know much or could care less about functional genomics. The theistic evolutionists get automatic and unconditional credibility for basically insulting people for believing the Scriptures as written. I'd like to say I know what they believe about the rest of the Bible but they never want to talk about it.

Your not against God I believe you are christians, but you have chosen to believe science over the Divine attributes of God.
If God used MACROevolution, then why is the Bible written with the grneologies back to adam, when it cme to CHRISTS birth.

The science is neutral with regards to origins, that's why they must keep up the full court press. It would not be so bad except that pretty much all they do. There is no such thing as macroevolution, that's more like a clutch phrase then an actual phenomenon. Some genes cannot change without killing the vital function. You know, like the brain.

The extreme point I'm trying to make in this debate is,
What does it matter what the science shows, what if God created mechanisms with the ability to macroevolve, it still does not prove macroevolution is the method God used in creation.

Science has nothing to do with it.

I'll say this again,
what if macroevolution was possible, it STILL CANNOT be proven GOD used that method, for bringing about origination of all things, GOD specifically had it WRITTEN down in LITERAL WORDS, for everyone to read, that GOD did CREATION in 6 literal days, because HE chose that way to bring about the origins of everything.
　
...............

[/QUOTE]

That what I mean about science having nothing to do with it. The evolutionist makes up his mind before any of the evidence is considered. They assume only naturalistic causes for everything going all the way back to the Big Bang. Is it any wonder it's creating division and strife among believers?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mathetes123]

There's really only two positions... Either God is a horrible, evil tyrant, or the Bible contains a good deal of fallible, human interpretations of God's will.

It's not surprising since our modern Bible has been added to, deleted from, modified, and re-translated many times over thousands of years.

A 30 second game of "telephone" can yield some discrepancies... imagine what a few thousands years could do.

With reference to your signature line, the Bible claims to be truth, yet you claim it is full of error. How do you distinguish truth from error in the Bible and what do you consider to be the essentials of the faith?

 

[KhaosTheory]

Because Macroevolution theory can work outside of God intervening, that's what the atheists believe, so for a christian to believe in macroevolution, they are doing exactly what the atheists do, they are putting science before Gods written Word, and conveniently adding God into the theory.

It's never a good reason to not believe something just because it goes against your presupposition... That's a foundational error in intellectual honesty.

Besides, special creation could work outside of God just as easily as marcoevolution could. Plants and animals could just materialize out of thin air from some quantum dimensional rifts without any need for a God. There's nothing about special creation that assumes by default that Yahweh is behind it.

We both have the same amount of faith... I'm not "conveniently adding God" into my theory any more than you are. You have faith that God magically conjured all current animal species into existence 6000 years ago and I have faith that God conjured the universe into existence 14 billion years ago and then allowed life to develop.

The only difference between us is that my view actually matches with reality.

Your not against God I believe you are christians, but you have chosen to believe science over the Divine attributes of God.
If God used MACROevolution, then why is the Bible written with the grneologies back to adam, when it cme to CHRISTS birth.

Whether or not Adam and Eve were literal people has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. It's possible Adam and Eve could be a metaphor but it's also possible that they were the first sentient hominids when God decided to give our ancestors the "imago dei".

The extreme point I'm trying to make in this debate is,
What does it matter what the science shows, what if God created mechanisms with the ability to macroevolve, it still does not prove macroevolution is the method God used in creation.

Nothing in science ever "proves" anything. It just gives us the best explanation given the evidence.

We at least know that organisms CAN evolve and we see evidence that they did evolve in the fossil record and in genetic analysis... But you are right, we don't KNOW if God actually used macro-evolution or if he just tricked us into believing everything evolved by leaving all this evidence around.

As far as why it matters... some of us would like to figure out how things actually work instead of just sticking our heads in the sand and remaining comfortable in our lack of knowledge.

It's kind of hypocritical for you to ask that question because the same type of curiosity that lead us to uncover these facts of biology is the same curiosity that lead us to develop that computer that you are typing on right now.

I'll say this again,
what if macroevolution was possible, it STILL CANNOT be proven GOD used that method, for bringing about origination of all things, GOD specifically had it WRITTEN down in LITERAL WORDS, for everyone to read, that GOD did CREATION in 6 literal days, because HE chose that way to bring about the origins of everything.
　
...............

Well at least you will now entertain the idea that life can change over time.

Of course it still cannot "be proven" that God did anything... He's God. Obviously it's possible that He did something one way but then made it look like it happened another way... But I didn't know that the God you believed in was so deceptive.

A good scientist believes whatever can be shown to be accurate, and so far all evidence in the rock layers of the earth and in the DNA of all the animals we've sequenced it looks like macro-evolution is a normal phenomenon that has been occurring on this planet since the first proto-cellular organisms began to replicate themselves.

Until I see a better explanation for why fossils are so temporally stratified in the earth or why the DNA of every animal can be traced back to common ancestors, I'm going to continue to believe in an old earth and evolution... that's just what honest people do.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

With reference to your signature line, the Bible claims to be truth, yet you claim it is full of error. How do you distinguish truth from error in the Bible and what do you consider to be the essentials of the faith?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant and literally correct?

 

[samaus12345]

Blackwater Babe Khaos theory

Watch Kent Hovind take on 3 Phds (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) and pwn because he is based on GOD AND GENESIS not MAN

hovind debate - YouTube

 

[Greg1234]

Besides, special creation could work outside of God just as easily as marcoevolution could. Plants and animals could just materialize out of thin air from some quantum dimensional rifts without any need for a God. There's nothing about special creation that assumes by default that Yahweh is behind it.

It starts from the spirit and creates the physical.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Blackwater Babe Khaos theory

Watch Kent Hovind take on 3 Phds (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) and pwn because he is based on GOD AND GENESIS not MAN

Variations of "nu-uh!" are hardly what I would call "pwn"ing.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Blackwater Babe Khaos theory

Watch Kent Hovind take on 3 Phds (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) and pwn because he is based on GOD AND GENESIS not MAN

hovind debate - YouTube

Holy cow... lol are you serious? I've seen that video a very long time ago.

You don't have to even have half a brain to tell that entire video is one big circus act...

Hovind found the worst possible people to talk about biology... That one guy even said "I'm not sure what I'm doing here..." because he's not even in the field of biology!

That deceitful criminal Kent Hovind deliberately put unqualified people up on that stage and then used his slimy car salesman bravado to knock down a bunch of strawmen...

Even so, I think they made some good points and did the best they could. But come on! Tell me you see how contrived and manipulated that video was...

Same thing happened in that famous "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists" video.... It makes me sick... the crap these creationists come up with... and the lies... grrrr I need to go take a break for a minute.

 

[KhaosTheory]

You want to see a video with Hovind against a qualified person?

Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist Nice Beat Down! - YouTube

Ok see ya guys... I'm going to go put my head through a wall now.